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. | — | 7B/13B/70B |
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. | 200k | 4k |
| 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. | $1.00 | — |
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. | $5.00 | — |
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. | $0.10 | — |
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. | $1.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $5.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
| $450Anthropic list price | — | |
| 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. | 77% | — |
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 VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 73.3% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 73% | — |
OSWorld 2.1 (offline)Agentic 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. | 15.7% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release date | Oct 15 2025 | Jul 18 2023 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Haiku 4.5vsGPT-6.1 SolLLaMA 2vsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Haiku 4.5vsGemini 4 ArgonLLaMA 2vsGemini 4 ArgonClaude Haiku 4.5vsGrok 4.7LLaMA 2vsGrok 4.7Claude Haiku 4.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017LLaMA 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Haiku 4.5vsMistral Large 4LLaMA 2vsMistral Large 4Claude Haiku 4.5vsKimi K3LLaMA 2vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Claude Haiku 4.5 and LLaMA 2 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Claude Haiku 4.5 has a verified first-party API price: $1.00 per million input tokens and $5.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for LLaMA 2. LLaMA 2 shipped 820 days before Claude Haiku 4.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 200k (Claude Haiku 4.5) vs 4k (LLaMA 2). Claude Haiku 4.5 is closed, while LLaMA 2 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Haiku 4.5 and LLaMA 2 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.