OpenAI: o3 Mini High
OpenAI o3-mini-high is the same model as [o3-mini](/openai/o3-mini) with reasoning_effort set to high. o3-mini is a cost-efficient language model optimized for STEM reasoning tasks, particularly excelling in science, mathematics, and...
Anyone in the Space can @-mention OpenAI: o3 Mini High with the team's shared context - pooled credits, one chat, one memory.
Starter is free forever - 1 Space, 100 credits/month, 1 MCP. No card.
Verdict
Best for
- Multi-step math and logic problems
- Code debugging with detailed reasoning
- Scientific problem decomposition
- Complex planning tasks under budget
- Structured analytical workflows
Strengths
The 'High' compute tier allocates extended reasoning time per query, producing more thorough chain-of-thought breakdowns than standard inference models. The 200K context window handles substantial codebases or research papers in a single pass. Output pricing at $4.40/Mtok undercuts o1 significantly while preserving the reasoning architecture that excels on STEM benchmarks. Input costs at $1.10/Mtok make it viable for iterative debugging sessions where you're feeding back error traces.
Trade-offs
Reasoning models sacrifice speed — expect 3-5x longer response times than GPT-4o for equivalent-length outputs. The model lacks vision and audio modalities, limiting use cases to text and document files. Without public benchmark data yet, performance relative to Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking on coding or math remains unverified. The 'High' tier's extended compute may be overkill for straightforward queries where GPT-4o would suffice at lower cost.
Specifications
- Provider
- openai
- Category
- llm
- Context length
- 200,000 tokens
- Max output
- 100,000 tokens
- Modalities
- text, file
- License
- proprietary
- Released
- 2025-02-12
Pricing
- Input
- $1.10/Mtok
- Output
- $4.40/Mtok
- Model ID
openai/o3-mini-high
Per-token prices show what the model costs upstream. On Switchy your team draws from one shared org credit pool - one plan, one balance for everyone.
Team cost calculator
5 seats · 80 msgs/day
Switchy meters this against your org's shared credit pool - one plan, one balance for everyone.
Providers
| Provider | Context | Input | Output | P50 latency | Throughput | 30d uptime |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| openai | 200k | $1.10/Mtok | $4.40/Mtok | — | — | — |
Performance
Benchmarks
Works well with
Top MCPs
Compatibility data comes from first-party telemetry; once we have enough co-usage signal, top MCPs for this model will appear here.
How Switchy teams use it
Starter prompts
Debug Failing Unit Test
This unit test is failing with an assertion error. Walk me through the logic step-by-step: what's the expected behavior, where does the actual output diverge, and what's the root cause? Then suggest a fix.Open in a Space →
Solve Multi-Step Math Problem
Solve this problem by breaking it into clear steps. Show your work at each stage, verify intermediate results, and explain your reasoning before moving to the next step.Open in a Space →
Plan Research Methodology
Design a methodology to answer this research question. Outline your approach, state key assumptions, identify potential confounds, and explain how you'd validate results.Open in a Space →
Refactor Complex Function
Analyze this function's logic and propose a refactor. Explain what makes the current version hard to maintain, how your refactor improves it, and what edge cases we need to preserve.Open in a Space →
Evaluate Logical Argument
Break down this argument into premises and conclusions. Identify any logical fallacies, unstated assumptions, or weak inferences. Explain your reasoning at each step.Open in a Space →
Example outputs
Illustrative - representative of the model's voice and quality, not literal recordings.
Review this Python function for edge cases and potential bugs. Focus on input validation and error handling: ```python def calculate_discount(price, discount_pct): return price - (price * discount_pct / 100) ```
This function has several edge cases to address: 1. **Negative inputs**: Both `price` and `discount_pct` could be negative, producing unexpected results. Add validation: `if price < 0 or discount_pct < 0: raise ValueError`. 2. **Discount over 100%**: A discount_pct > 100 yields negative final prices. Consider capping or raising an error. 3. **Type safety**: Non-numeric inputs will raise `TypeError` at runtime. Add type hints and validate with `isinstance(price, (int, float))`. 4. **Floating-point precision**: For currency, use `Decimal` from the standard library to avoid rounding errors in financial calculations. Recommend wrapping in try-except and returning a structured result or raising domain-specific exceptions.
This example highlights o3 Mini High's systematic reasoning for code review tasks. The 200k token context window supports reviewing entire modules, not just isolated functions. Trade-off: at $4.40/Mtok output, verbose explanations for simple functions add cost quickly compared to smaller models.
I'm designing a REST API for a multi-tenant SaaS product. Walk me through the security considerations for tenant isolation at the database level, including query patterns and potential pitfalls.
For robust tenant isolation in a shared database schema: **Row-level security (RLS)**: Implement database policies that automatically filter queries by `tenant_id`. PostgreSQL RLS or similar mechanisms enforce isolation even if application code fails. Every table needs a `tenant_id` column with a non-null constraint and index. **Connection-level context**: Set `app.current_tenant_id` as a session variable on each connection. RLS policies reference this variable, preventing cross-tenant leaks. **Pitfalls**: (1) Joins without tenant filters can leak data—audit all JOIN clauses. (2) Background jobs need explicit tenant context or risk operating on wrong data. (3) Migrations must preserve RLS policies. (4) Performance: tenant_id indexes are critical; missing indexes cause table scans. **Testing**: Write integration tests that attempt cross-tenant queries and verify they return empty sets, not errors.
Demonstrates o3 Mini High's architectural reasoning across security, database design, and operational concerns. The model connects multiple layers of the stack in a single response. Trade-off: lacks the depth of full o3 for novel threat modeling, but covers standard patterns well at lower cost.
Explain how gradient descent works to a product manager who understands statistics but hasn't studied calculus. Use a concrete analogy and avoid mathematical notation.
Imagine you're blindfolded on a hillside and need to reach the lowest valley. You can feel the slope under your feet but can't see the terrain. **Gradient descent** is your strategy: (1) Feel which direction slopes downward most steeply. (2) Take a step in that direction. (3) Repeat until the ground feels flat. In machine learning, the "hill" is your model's error surface—height represents how wrong predictions are. The "slope" is calculated from training data: which direction makes predictions worse (uphill) or better (downhill). Each step adjusts model parameters slightly. **Learning rate** = step size. Too large and you overshoot the valley, bouncing around. Too small and you take forever. The algorithm doesn't see the whole landscape—just the local slope—so it can get stuck in shallow dips (local minima) instead of finding the deepest valley.
Shows o3 Mini High's ability to translate technical concepts for non-technical stakeholders without oversimplifying. The analogy structure is clear and maps cleanly to ML terminology. Trade-off: for highly specialised audiences, the model sometimes over-explains; fine-tuning prompt tone helps.
Use-case deep-dives
When o3 Mini High justifies the cost for deep refactors
A 12-person engineering team needs to refactor a legacy Python monolith split across 80+ files, each change requiring context from multiple modules. o3 Mini High's 200k token window lets you load entire subsystems in one prompt—no chunking, no lost references. At $1.10 input / $4.40 output per Mtok, a typical refactor session (150k tokens in, 8k out) runs about $0.20, which beats the hourly cost of a senior dev re-reading the same files. The trade-off: if your refactors are single-file or under 32k tokens, you're overpaying for context you don't use—drop to a cheaper 128k model. If you're shipping 5+ cross-file refactors per sprint and context errors cost you review cycles, o3 Mini High pays for itself in the first week.
Why o3 Mini High handles 80-page NDAs without summarization
A 4-person legal ops team processes 30 vendor contracts per month, each 60-120 pages, extracting liability caps, termination clauses, and data residency terms into a shared tracker. o3 Mini High's 200k token window ingests a full 100-page PDF in one pass, so you get accurate clause references without the summarization drift that breaks citation links. At $1.10 / $4.40 per Mtok, processing one 80-page contract (roughly 140k tokens in, 2k out) costs about $0.16—cheaper than 15 minutes of paralegal time. The threshold: if your contracts average under 40 pages, a 128k model at half the price covers you. If you're above 60 pages and citation accuracy matters for audit trails, o3 Mini High is the floor you want.
When o3 Mini High is overkill for high-volume triage
A 20-person SaaS support team triages 400 inbound tickets daily, routing them to product, billing, or technical queues based on message content and account history. Each ticket averages 800 tokens (user message plus 2-3 prior exchanges), so a 32k context model handles 95% of cases at $0.15 per Mtok—one-seventh the cost of o3 Mini High. The 200k window only matters if you're appending full account transcripts or multi-month thread histories, which most triage workflows don't need. The buying call: if your median ticket context is under 10k tokens, route to a cheaper model and reserve o3 Mini High for the 5% of escalations that require deep history. If you're triaging with o3 Mini High today, you're burning $0.88 per Mtok on unused capacity.
Frequently asked
Is o3 Mini High good for coding tasks?
Yes, o3 Mini High is designed for reasoning-heavy tasks including code generation and debugging. It's part of OpenAI's o3 series which prioritizes deep reasoning over raw speed. Expect slower responses than GPT-4o but stronger logical consistency for complex algorithms and multi-step problem solving.
Is o3 Mini High cheaper than GPT-4o?
No. At $1.10 input and $4.40 output per million tokens, o3 Mini High costs roughly 5x more than GPT-4o for output tokens. You're paying for extended reasoning time per query. Use it when correctness matters more than cost—like production code review or mathematical proofs—not for drafting emails.
Can o3 Mini High handle 200k token contexts effectively?
The 200k context window matches GPT-4 Turbo, so it handles long codebases and documents. However, reasoning models consume more compute per token, so expect slower processing on full-context prompts. For massive context tasks, test latency with your actual data before committing to production workflows.
How does o3 Mini High compare to o1 or o1-mini?
o3 Mini High sits between o1-mini and full o1 in the reasoning hierarchy. It offers stronger reasoning than o1-mini at higher cost, but undercuts full o1 pricing. Without public benchmarks yet, assume it's the middle ground—use it when o1-mini fails your task but full o1 feels like overkill.
Should I use o3 Mini High for real-time chat applications?
No. Reasoning models trade speed for accuracy, making them too slow for conversational UI. Responses can take 10-30 seconds depending on complexity. Use GPT-4o or GPT-4o-mini for chat. Reserve o3 Mini High for background jobs like code analysis, research synthesis, or batch document processing where latency doesn't matter.