Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 30B |
| 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 third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $1.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.30DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $5.00Amazon Bedrock | $1.10Phala |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 76% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 73% | 83.5% |
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 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. | — | 51.2% |
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. | — | 51.7% |
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. | — | 75.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 22% |
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. | — | 65.9% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 953 |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 78.8% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 74% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release date | Oct 15 2025 | Aug 10 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Haiku 4.5vsGPT-6 SolMuse GlimmervsGPT-6 SolClaude Haiku 4.5vsGemini 3.8 FlashMuse GlimmervsGemini 3.8 FlashClaude Haiku 4.5vsGrok 4.7Muse GlimmervsGrok 4.7Claude Haiku 4.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Haiku 4.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Muse GlimmervsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Haiku 4.5vsKimi K3Muse GlimmervsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer leads Claude Haiku 4.5 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond). 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 Muse Glimmer. Claude Haiku 4.5 shipped 299 days before Muse Glimmer, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is closed, while Muse Glimmer is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Muse Glimmer leads at 76% vs Claude Haiku 4.5 at 73.3%. On GPQA Diamond, Muse Glimmer leads at 83.5% vs Claude Haiku 4.5 at 73%.