Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
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 | $1.25 |
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 | $4.25 |
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. | — | $1.25Meta |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $4.25Meta |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | $463Meta list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 62.1% |
ProgramBenchProgram reconstruction — The AI receives a working program and its documentation, then builds a replacement from scratch without the original source code, internet access or decompilation. The score is the percentage of 200 programs that pass every behavioral test. We record each model's best published mini-SWE-agent result, including higher reasoning efforts where available. Partial test-pass rates and almost-solved programs do not count toward this score. Equal scores share a rank here; the official board also uses partial progress to break ties. Higher is better. | — | 0% |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 61.5% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 53.3% |
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% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 80% |
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% | — |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | — | 88.1% |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 54.7% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 75.6% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 80.8% |
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% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | — | 57.2% |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | — | 20% |
TaxEval v2Tax questions — A set of real tax questions created by Vals AI — can the AI give accurate answers about tax rules and filings? Higher is better. | — | 79.72% |
MedScribeMedical admin work — Can the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | — | 88.89% |
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% | — |
CharXiv Reasoning · with toolsChart reasoning — The same chart-and-figure reasoning test, run with the AI allowed to use tools — writing code to inspect the image, for instance — rather than reading the chart unaided. Scores run higher than the unaided version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | — | 88.4% |
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% | — |
ZeroBench (tools, pass@5)Visual reasoning — percentage of 100 visual problems solved at least once in five attempts with tools | — | 46% |
SimpleVQA (with tools)Visual reasoning — accuracy on 2,024 English and Chinese visual questions with tools | — | 73.3% |
BabyVisionVisual reasoning — Tests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 76.3% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Jul 9 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Fable 5.2vsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse Spark 1.1vsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Fable 5.2vsGemini 4 CarbonMuse Spark 1.1vsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Fable 5.2vsGrok 4.7Muse Spark 1.1vsGrok 4.7Claude Fable 5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Spark 1.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Fable 5.2vsMistral Large 4Muse Spark 1.1vsMistral Large 4Claude Fable 5.2vsKimi K3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.1vsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5.2 leads Muse Spark 1.1 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Humanity's Last Exam). Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper on both input and output: $1.25 vs $8.00 per million input tokens, and $4.25 vs $40.00 per million output tokens. Muse Spark 1.1 shipped 123 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 (Muse Spark 1.1).
On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, Claude Fable 5.2 leads at 74.2% vs Muse Spark 1.1 at 62.1%.