Claude Opus 4.6 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Side-by-side API pricing and Artificial Analysis performance for Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B (Prism Ml). Green cells mark the better value in each row.
Prices updated Sep 20, 2026, 1:19 AM UTC · refreshed hourly
| Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B Prism Ml | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $0.075 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $0.50 |
| Blended $/1M (3:1) | $10.00 | $0.181 |
| RAG example (30K in / 2K out) | $0.2 | $0.00325 |
| Quality & speed | ||
| Intelligence Index | 26.4 | — |
| Coding Index | — | — |
| Agentic Index | — | — |
| Output speed (tok/s) | 0 | — |
| Time to first token | 0s | — |
| Specs | ||
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Input modalities | text, image, file | text, image |
FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has the lower blended API price at $0.181 per 1M tokens (3:1 input:output mix), versus $10.00 for the other model. Prices are live from OpenRouter and refresh about hourly.
Which is better for RAG workloads?
For a typical RAG request (30K input / 2K output tokens), Ternary Bonsai 2 27B costs about $0.00325 per request versus $0.2. Also compare context windows: Claude Opus 4.6 offers 1M and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B offers 262K.
Which scores higher on Artificial Analysis benchmarks?
Claude Opus 4.6 leads on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (26.4 vs —). Check coding and agentic indices on this page for workload-specific tradeoffs.