GPT-5 vs Crouton Alpha: which should you choose in 2026?
GPT-5 (by OpenAI) and Crouton Alpha (by Stealth) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Crouton Alpha has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $3.44 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis.
Crouton Alpha has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Choose GPT-5 if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
Choose Crouton Alpha if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | Crouton Alpha |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | 65.0% SWE-bench | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
30 problems from the 2025 American Invitational Mathematics Examination testing olympiad-level math reasoning Accuracy % | 50.23 matharena.ai | — |
Challenging math contest benchmark featuring the most difficult olympiad-level problems Accuracy % | 50.23 matharena.ai | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | GPT-5 | Crouton Alpha |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | OpenAI | Stealth |
| API provider | OpenAI | Crouton Alpha |
| Input context | 400,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 943,718 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Aug 7, 2025 | Nov 3, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-09-30 | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, File | Text, Image, Video, File, Audio |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $1.25 | $0.00 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $10.00 | $0.00 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $3.44 | $0.00 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Nov 3, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing GPT-5 from OpenAI with Crouton Alpha from Stealth? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | GPT-5 | Crouton Alpha | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
GPT-5 vs Crouton Alpha FAQ
Which is better, GPT-5 or Crouton Alpha?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Crouton Alpha has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $3.44 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis. Crouton Alpha has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Crouton Alpha has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $3.44 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis.
Which model supports more context?
Crouton Alpha has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Can I switch between GPT-5 and Crouton Alpha?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More GPT-5 comparisons
Claude Opus 4.5
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.5 is Anthropic’s frontier reasoning model optimized for complex software engineering, agentic workflows, and long-horizon computer use.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro is Google’s state-of-the-art AI model designed for advanced reasoning, coding, mathematics, and scientific tasks.
Muse Spark Open
Meta
Muse Spark Open is a coding-optimized open-weight model.
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon is Google's flagship reasoning model, built for complex software engineering, deep mathematical and scientific problem solving, and autonomous multi-step agents.
Muse Wonder
Meta
Muse Wonder is a frontier reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex personal and professional agentic tasks.
More Crouton Alpha comparisons
Muse Spark Open
Meta
Muse Spark Open is a coding-optimized open-weight model.
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon is Google's flagship reasoning model, built for complex software engineering, deep mathematical and scientific problem solving, and autonomous multi-step agents.
Muse Wonder
Meta
Muse Wonder is a frontier reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex personal and professional agentic tasks.
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is Google's most intelligent Flash model with significant gains from 3.7 Flash across software engineering, agentic tasks, and multi-step reasoning.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a multimodal model from Google for fast agentic workflows, coding, and complex multi-step reasoning.