Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
o1
56
Sakana Fugu Ultra
100
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Knowledge
+19.8 difference
o1
Sakana Fugu Ultra
$15 / $60
$5 / $30
98 t/s
N/A
32.29s
N/A
200K
1M
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 100 to 56. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Sakana Fugu Ultra's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 95.5 against 75.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 75.7% to 95.5%.
o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens for Sakana Fugu Ultra. That is roughly 2.0x on output cost alone. Sakana Fugu Ultra gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for o1.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 100 to 56. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 75.7% and 95.5%.
Sakana Fugu Ultra has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 95.5 versus 75.7. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.