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. | — | 2.4T |
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. | — | $2.00Alibaba |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $6.00Alibaba |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | $700Alibaba | |
| 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% | 43.6% |
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. | — | 95% |
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. | — | 67.7% |
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. | — | 56.6% |
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% | — |
PaperBenchResearch reproduction — reproducing the results of an ML research paper end to end | — | 93% |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 55.9% |
QwenSWEBench V2Software engineering — Qwen's in-house coding benchmark, second version, built around complex real-world software-engineering tasks. Scores are not comparable with the first version. Higher is better. | — | 55.1% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 11.3% |
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. | — | 86.6% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 53.4% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 74.8% |
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. | — | 72.5% |
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. | — | 86.1% |
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% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? 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% | — |
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. | — | 82% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 82.3% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Aug 3 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Fable 5.2vsGPT-6.1 TerraQwen3.8-MaxvsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Fable 5.2vsGemini 4 CarbonQwen3.8-MaxvsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Fable 5.2vsMuse EmberQwen3.8-MaxvsMuse EmberClaude Fable 5.2vsGrok 4.7Qwen3.8-MaxvsGrok 4.7Claude Fable 5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3.8-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Fable 5.2vsMistral Large 4Qwen3.8-MaxvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5.2 leads Qwen3.8-Max on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Humanity's Last Exam). 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 Qwen3.8-Max. Qwen3.8-Max shipped 98 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 (Qwen3.8-Max).
On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, Claude Fable 5.2 leads at 74.2% vs Qwen3.8-Max at 43.6%.