Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | — | 400B |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 1M | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $8.00 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $40.00 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.20 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.1875DigitalOcean |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.6525DigitalOcean |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | $70.13DigitalOcean | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 29% |
FrontierSWE V2Ultra-long-horizon coding — Engineering problems that would occupy a person for days: systems implementation, performance work, scientific computing and AI research, with up to twenty hours per task. Partial credit is awarded, because finishing one outright is still rare. Higher is better. | 69.9% | — |
FrontierCode 2.0Agentic coding — whether a model’s code changes to open-source repositories would be merged by their maintainers (version 2.0); separate from FrontierCode v1.1 scores | 49.1% | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 43.4% |
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Agentic scientific computing — The same command-line setup as Terminal-Bench, pointed at scientific work: the AI has to drive research tooling and computational workflows through to a result, rather than administer a machine. Version 0.1 is the first release of the task set, and scores run lower than on the general board. Higher is better. | 74.6% | — |
RoboDojo SimRobotics — control of a simulated two-arm robot from camera images, average success rate | 64.9% | — |
WANDR (relaxed score)Agentic search — agentic web search, relaxed scoring | 82.1% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 74.2% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 69.8% |
MMLU-ProKnowledge — accuracy on the ten-option MMLU-Pro benchmark | — | 80.5% |
MGSMMultilingual math — solving grade-school word problems translated into multiple languages | — | 92.3% |
OSWorld 2.1 · offlineAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.1, in its offline setting. Scores are not comparable with version 2.0. Higher is better. | 89.3% | — |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 51.4% | — |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | 1785 | — |
AA-Briefcase v1.1 (rubric)Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval, v1.1 rubric score; separate from the Elo rating | 66.1% | — |
Remote Labor Index (RLI)Knowledge work — real paid remote-work projects, scored on the share completed to client standard | 41.3% | — |
Chartography · no toolsChart tasks — The same chart-centred test with no tools: the AI has to read each chart unaided. Scores run far lower than the with-tools version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | 73.4% | — |
MathVistaMultimodal reasoning — mathematical reasoning about visual information | — | 73.7% |
MMMU-Pro · standard and vision meanMultimodal reasoning — average across the standard and vision sets | — | 59.6% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 73.4% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Apr 5 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Fable 5.2vsGPT-6.1 TerraLLaMA 4 MaverickvsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Fable 5.2vsGemini 4 CarbonLLaMA 4 MaverickvsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Fable 5.2vsGrok 4.7LLaMA 4 MaverickvsGrok 4.7Claude Fable 5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017LLaMA 4 MaverickvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Fable 5.2vsMistral Large 4LLaMA 4 MaverickvsMistral Large 4Claude Fable 5.2vsKimi K3.1 ProLLaMA 4 MaverickvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5.2 and LLaMA 4 Maverick don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Claude Fable 5.2 has a verified first-party price for an available API: $8.00 per million input tokens and $40.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for LLaMA 4 Maverick. LLaMA 4 Maverick shipped 583 days before Claude Fable 5.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Fable 5.2) vs 1M (LLaMA 4 Maverick). Claude Fable 5.2 is closed, while LLaMA 4 Maverick is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Fable 5.2 and LLaMA 4 Maverick don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.