Context Window Visualizer

Share:

Paste text and see what % of each model's context window it fills — GPT-5, Claude, Gemini and more — with exact GPT token counts. Free, runs in your browser.

RT-AI-004 · AI Tools
Your browser is too old for this tool’s interactive features. Please update to Safari 13.1, Chrome or Edge 80, Firefox 74 or newer.

Context Window Visualizer

0 GPT tokens

GPT-5.x and older GPT bars use OpenAI's tiktoken (o200k_base) and are exact; GPT-6, which tiktoken does not map yet, borrows that count and is marked est. Every other bar is marked est. too: Claude uses Anthropic's own published figures (about 3.5 English characters per token before Claude 4.7, about 30% more tokens on 4.7 and later), Gemini a per-script estimate fitted to Google's token counter, and xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral the GPT count as a stand-in. On Claude the reply counts inside the window, so leave room for it.

Advertisement
After tool · AD-W1Responsive · Post-tool

How to Use the Context Window Visualizer

Paste your text

Drop in the prompt, document or conversation you plan to send. The exact GPT token count appears at the top and updates as you edit.

Scan the bars

Each model shows a bar for how much of its context window your text fills, with that model's own token count, the percentage and the window size beside it — a Claude bar counts your text the way Anthropic says Claude does, not as GPT does.

Spot what doesn't fit

If your text exceeds a model's window the bar turns red and shows how many tokens you're over — a clear signal to trim, chunk, or pick a bigger-window model.

Leave room for the answer

On Claude the window holds your input and the model's reply together; Google lists a separate, smaller output limit for Gemini (65,536 tokens). Either way, keep your input well under 100% so there's space for the response you want back.

Advertisement
After how-to · AD-W2Responsive

The Context Window Is a Budget, Not a Suggestion

What "context window" actually means

A model's context window is the maximum number of tokens it can work with in one request. Anthropic defines it as all the text the model can reference "including the response itself" — your system prompt, the conversation history, any documents you paste, and the reply. Google describes Gemini differently, with an input limit of 1,048,576 tokens and a separate output limit of 65,536. Either way, a prompt that fills the whole window leaves no room for an answer, and Anthropic's API refuses an input that is over it outright ("prompt is too long"). Visualising your text against each model's window turns an abstract number ("1M tokens") into a concrete picture of how much headroom you actually have.

The windows are not interchangeable, either. They range from GPT-4o's 128K tokens through Claude Haiku 4.5's 200K and GPT-5.4 mini's 400K to the 1M-class windows of GPT-5.x, most Claude models and Gemini — roughly an eightfold spread. A document that's a rounding error in a 1M window can overflow a 128K one entirely. That's why this tool measures your text against every model side by side: the same paste that "fits comfortably" in one model is "over by 40,000 tokens" in another, and seeing both at once is how you choose the right model for the job.

"The window holds the question and the answer. Fill it with your prompt and you've left the model nowhere to reply."

Why GPT is exact and the others are estimates

OpenAI open-sourced its tokenizer (tiktoken), so this tool can split your text exactly the way a GPT model will — the GPT bars are precise. Anthropic and Google use their own tokenizers and don't publish one that runs in a browser, so their bars are estimates, marked est., and each uses its own figures rather than the GPT count. Anthropic says a Claude token is about 3.5 English characters on models before Claude 4.7, and that 4.7 and later produce about 30% more tokens for the same text; OpenAI's tokenizer averages about 4.8 characters per token on our own English test page, so the same English paste fills a Claude bar noticeably faster than a GPT one. The Gemini estimate is fitted per writing system to Google's own token counter. xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral publish no figure we can use, so their bars borrow the GPT count. Near the top of any estimated bar, confirm with that provider's own token-counting endpoint. For the raw counts alone, use our Token Counter, which uses the same estimates; to split oversized text into windows that fit, use the Text Chunker.

Disclosure: RECATOOLS is written with the assistance of Claude, made by Anthropic, whose models are compared on this page. Readers should weigh that interest.

A million is not one number: Claude 1,000,000, Gemini 1,048,576

01

Anthropic's context window covers input and output — "including the response itself".

02

Google splits Gemini's in two: 1,048,576 tokens in, 65,536 out.

03

Windows range from GPT-4o's 128K to the 1M-class windows of GPT-5.x, most Claude models and Gemini.

04

"1M" isn't one number — Claude is 1,000,000, Gemini 1,048,576, GPT-5.x 1,050,000.

05

GPT-5.4 mini and nano have 400K windows, and Claude Haiku 4.5 200K — well short of the flagships.

06

Send Claude an input bigger than its window and the API refuses it ("prompt is too long") — nothing is summarised for you.

07

Anthropic warns that as token count grows, accuracy and recall degrade — it calls this "context rot".

08

OpenAI's tiktoken is open source, so GPT token counts can be computed exactly.

09

Anthropic puts a Claude token at about 3.5 English characters before Claude 4.7, and says 4.7 and later produce about 30% more tokens.

10

This visualizer runs entirely in your browser — your text is never uploaded.

📅 Research current as of 26 Oct 2026 · Sources: Context windows from each vendor's own model pages, read 2026-10-25 (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI, DeepSeek, Mistral), via the shared rate card. Claude: Anthropic's pricing and context-window docs (3.5 English characters per token before Claude 4.7; ~30% more on 4.7+). Gemini: per-script estimate fitted to Google's countTokens. GPT: OpenAI tiktoken o200k_base, exact.
Standards, published formulas, and reference data are revised over time — check against a current authoritative source before relying on these figures.

Frequently Asked Questions

  • It's the maximum number of tokens a model can work with in one request. Anthropic counts everything in it — your system prompt, conversation history, pasted documents and the model's reply — and its API refuses an input that alone is over the window. Google states separate input and output limits for Gemini instead.
  • On Claude, yes: Anthropic defines the window as all the text the model can reference "including the response itself", so the reply is carved out of the same budget. Gemini lists a separate output limit (65,536 tokens) beside its 1,048,576-token input limit. Either way, leave headroom for the response you expect.
  • OpenAI publishes its tokenizer (tiktoken), so GPT counts are computed exactly in your browser — for the models tiktoken maps, which do not yet include GPT-6. Anthropic and Google don't release a browser tokenizer, so Claude bars use Anthropic's published characters-per-token figures and Gemini bars an estimate fitted to Google's own token counter — the same estimates as our Token Counter. xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral publish no figure we can use, so their bars borrow the GPT count. All of these are labelled "est."
  • They are planning figures, not counts. The Claude estimate follows Anthropic's own English figure (about 3.5 characters per token before Claude 4.7, about 30% more tokens on 4.7 and later); Anthropic gives no figure for Chinese, Japanese, Korean or Thai, so for those scripts it rests on OpenAI's rates. The Gemini estimate is set never to come out below Google's own counts on our test text. If an estimated bar sits near the top of a model's window, confirm with that provider's own token-counting endpoint before relying on it.
  • Either pick a model with a larger window, trim the input, or split it into pieces that each fit. Our Text Chunker can break long text into overlapping chunks sized to a token budget, which is the standard approach for RAG and long-document workflows.
  • Not always. Anthropic says that as token count grows, accuracy and recall degrade ("context rot"), and a huge prompt costs more and runs slower. Fitting within the window is necessary but not sufficient — concise, well-structured context usually beats simply filling the window.
  • The "1M" figure is approximate marketing. The exact windows differ: Claude's 1M models are 1,000,000, Gemini's input limit is 1,048,576 (2²⁰) on every Gemini model listed here, and OpenAI's GPT-5.x are 1,050,000. This tool uses each model's own figure so the percentages are right, not a shared round number.
  • No. The tokenizer runs entirely in your browser from a locally-served library. Your text is never uploaded to any server or model; the only network request is your browser fetching the tokenizer file from our own domain.
  • The exact tokenizer table loads on first use to keep the page fast. You'll briefly see a per-script estimate, then the exact GPT count snaps in. After that first load it's instant for the rest of your session.
  • Completely free, with no account or sign-up, and no limit on use. It runs in your browser and collects no data.

Method & sources

How it computes

Fill = tokens ÷ the model's context window from the shared rate card (each vendor's own model page). Tokens per model family: OpenAI exact (tiktoken o200k_base); Claude from Anthropic's figures — 3.5 English characters per token before Claude 4.7, ~30% more on 4.7+; Gemini fitted to Google's countTokens; xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral the GPT count as a stand-in. Over the window, the bar says by how many tokens (ContextWindowKernel, with TokenEstimateKernel).

What this tool implements

  • Context windows are each vendor's own published figure, read 2026-10-25: Anthropic 1,000,000 (Opus 5, Fable 5, Sonnet 5, Mythos 5, Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6) and 200,000 (Haiku 4.5); OpenAI 1,050,000 (GPT-5.6, 5.5, 5.4), 400,000 (5.4 mini/nano), 128,000 (GPT-4o); Google 1,048,576 input tokens on every Gemini row; xAI 500,000 (Grok 4.5) and 1,000,000 (Grok 4.3); DeepSeek 1M; Mistral Large 3 256k (262,144).
  • Each model is counted with its own tokenizer family rather than one shared count. GPT is exact. Claude follows Anthropic: "Claude 4.7 and later models … use a newer tokenizer … approximately 30% more tokens for the same text" and "Claude Sonnet 4.6 and earlier models use the previous tokenizer", at about 3.5 English characters per token; an Anthropic row whose version cannot be read is counted with the newer tokenizer, the higher count. Anthropic gives no figure for Han, kana, Hangul or Thai, so those rest on OpenAI's rates, as on the Token Counter.
  • The window semantics are stated per vendor, not assumed: Anthropic defines the context window as all the text the model can reference "including the response itself" and refuses an input over it ("prompt is too long"); Google publishes a separate input limit (1,048,576) and output limit (65,536) for Gemini.
  • Corrected 2026-10-25: every bar used the GPT count (Claude and Gemini now get their own estimates); the unsourced "~15–20% more tokens on Claude" → Anthropic's figures; Gemini 3.x windows 1,000,000 → 1,048,576 on the shared rate card; "covers input and output together" (all vendors) → per vendor; "truncated or rejected" → Anthropic refuses; "Models can degrade on very long context" now cites Anthropic ("context rot"). Added the Anthropic disclosure.

Sources

What can make this go out of date

  • The shared rate card public/assets/vendor/reca-ai-data/llm-models.js (`chat`, generated from database/data/llm-rate-cards.php by instruments:sync-llm-data) and the vendored js-tiktoken tables, both same-origin; nothing the reader types is sent anywhere.

Abridged — the full review record for this tool runs longer than the list above.

Advertisement
Pre-footer · AD-W3 728 × 90