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 · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $10.00Verified organizations only | $0.10 |
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. | $50.00 | $0.50 |
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. | $0.25 | $0.004 |
| $4,500Anthropic list price | $45.00Meta list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 60.9% | 40.9% |
AA Coding Agent IndexAgentic coding — Artificial Analysis' overall score for coding agents, combining three coding benchmarks with what each run costs and how many tokens it burns. It rates a model paired with a particular agent harness rather than the model alone, so the same model scores differently in different tools. Higher is better. | — | 46 |
De novo binder design (24 hr)Protein design — de novo protein binder design within a 24-hour budget, as reported by Anthropic | 79.1% | — |
CyScenarioBenchCybersecurity — multi-step cybersecurity scenarios; each lab runs its own unique task set, so scores from different labs do not compare | 61.7% | — |
CVE RediscoveryCybersecurity — Anthropic internal evaluation: share of 1,829 published CVEs a model finds on its own from a snapshot of the project before the fix | 78.3% | — |
BioMysteryBench · hardBiology — Real unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | 44.1% | — |
BioMysteryBench · human solvedBiology — Real biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 90.3% | — |
AutomationBench (Artificial Analysis)Business workflows — The same business-workflow test, run by Artificial Analysis rather than by the lab, and graded strict pass@1: a workflow counts only if the whole of it is right on the first attempt. Read it as a separate board from the lab-run AutomationBench scores. Higher is better. | — | 37.8% |
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Overall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index, version 5.0 with tools; separate from earlier index editions | — | 36 |
GDP.PDF (Artificial Analysis)Document comprehension — The same professional-PDF test, run by Artificial Analysis rather than by the lab. Read it as a separate board from the lab-run GDP.PDF scores. Higher is better. | — | 22.8% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release date | Sep 1 2026 | Nov 9 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5.1vsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse EmbervsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Mythos 5.1vsGemini 4 CarbonMuse EmbervsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Mythos 5.1vsGrok 4.7Muse EmbervsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos 5.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse EmbervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos 5.1vsMistral Large 4Muse EmbervsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos 5.1vsKimi K3.1 ProMuse EmbervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5.1 leads Muse Ember on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench 4.0). Muse Ember is cheaper on both input and output: $0.10 vs $10.00 per million input tokens, and $0.50 vs $50.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Claude Mythos 5.1 requires organization verification. Claude Mythos 5.1 shipped 69 days before Muse Ember, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos 5.1) vs 1M (Muse Ember).
On Terminal-Bench 4.0, Claude Mythos 5.1 leads at 60.9% vs Muse Ember at 40.9%.