中国 AI 对手崛起之际，OpenAI 与 Anthropic 打响价格战

英文标题：OpenAI and Anthropic in price war as Chinese AI rivals gain ground

随着中国 AI 厂商的竞争力提升，OpenAI 和 Anthropic 正通过下调中端模型价格来增强竞争力。OpenAI 将 GPT-5.6 Luna 的输入和输出 token 价格分别下调至每百万 token 0.20 美元和 1.20 美元；Anthropic 推出价格更低的 Opus 5，并取消了 Sonnet 5 原定的涨价计划。基准测试显示，模型的标价并不等同于实际任务成本，因为不同模型完成同一任务所需的 token 数量、尝试次数和推理强度不同。业内人士认为，美国 AI 实验室正在下调中端产品价格，同时试图守住最先进旗舰模型的定价能力。

打开原文相关 2 · 机会 0

中文

AI 实验室提供一系列能力和价格各异的模型；成本还会因模型版本以及所使用的“推理强度”（effort）设置而进一步变化。客户通常需要为输入 token 和输出 token 付费：输入 token 用于衡量输入模型的数据量，输出 token 则衡量模型生成的响应内容。

美国 AI 实验室最新的降价主要针对中端产品，使其在价格上更具备与中国厂商产品竞争的能力。例如，OpenAI 将 GPT-5.6 Luna 的价格从每百万输入 token 1 美元降至 0.20 美元，并将每百万输出 token 的价格从 6 美元降至 1.20 美元。

Anthropic 推出了 Opus 5，定价为每百万输入 token 5 美元、每百万输出 token 25 美元，仅为其 Fable 5 模型价格的一半。本周，该公司取消了原计划于 9 月生效的 Sonnet 5 涨价方案。

不过，token 的标价并不能直接用于比较不同 AI 模型。能力更强的模型有时可以用更少的 token 或更少的尝试完成一项任务，这意味着按 token 标价看似更贵的模型，最终实际成本可能反而更低。

此外，大多数模型可以在不同的“推理强度”设置下运行。这些设置会改变回答问题时使用的计算资源，进而影响模型性能以及完成任务的最终成本。

对数学、科学、编程和推理等领域模型进行基准测试的 Artificial Analysis 发现，Anthropic 的 Opus 5 在“中等”推理强度下，其性能和单项任务成本与 Moonshot 的 Kimi K3 在“最高”推理强度下相近。OpenAI 的 GPT-5.6 Luna 在“最高”推理强度下的表现与 DeepSeek 的 V4 Flash 在“最高”推理强度下类似，但其单项任务成本略低于后者的两倍。

Anthropic 和 OpenAI 均拒绝置评。

一位接近 Anthropic 的人士表示，Opus 5 的定价低于其旗舰产品 Fable 5，是由这家初创公司“模型家族的构建方式决定的，因此与竞争对手没有关联”。

网站托管服务商 Hostinger 的 AI 技术负责人 Mantas Lukauskas 表示，该公司自 2020 年以来一直使用大语言模型。他指出，最顶级模型的价格“持平至上涨”。

他补充称，近期的价格调整是对 Anthropic 和 OpenAI 等公司能否守住其最先进产品成本的“首次真正考验”：“美国实验室已经下调了中端产品价格，同时在捍卫高端产品。”

English / 原文

AI labs offer a range of models with different capabilities and prices, with costs varying further according to the version of a model and the “effort” settings used. Customers are typically charged for input tokens, used to measure data fed into a model, and output tokens, which measure what it generates in response.

The latest price cuts from US labs apply to mid-tier products and make them more competitive with Chinese offerings. OpenAI, for example, cut the price of GPT-5.6 Luna from $1 to $0.20 per million input tokens and from $6 to $1.20 per million output tokens.

Anthropic launched Opus 5 at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens—half the price of its Fable 5 model. This week, the company called off a planned rise in prices for its Sonnet 5 model, which had been due to take effect from September.

Headline token prices do not provide a straightforward comparison between AI models, however. More capable models can sometimes complete a task using fewer tokens or with fewer attempts, meaning a model that appears more expensive based on the headline price of tokens can ultimately cost less.

Additionally, most can operate at different “effort” settings, which vary the computing power used to answer a question and can affect both performance and the ultimate cost of completing a task.

Artificial Analysis, which benchmarks models across areas including math, science, coding, and reasoning, found Anthropic’s Opus 5 at “medium” effort delivered similar performance and cost per task to Moonshot’s Kimi K3 at “max” effort. OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 Luna at “max” effort performed similarly to DeepSeek’s V4 Flash at “max,” but cost just under twice as much per task.

Anthropic and OpenAI declined to comment.

A person close to Anthropic said Opus 5’s pricing below its flagship Fable 5 was how the startup’s “family of models is built, so there’s no connection to competitors.”

Mantas Lukauskas, AI tech lead at Hostinger, a website hosting provider that has used large language models since 2020, noted that prices for the very best models were “flat to rising.”

He added that the recent pricing changes are the “first real test” of whether groups such as Anthropic and OpenAI can protect the cost of their most advanced offerings: “The US labs have cut the middle and are defending the top.”