Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 1M |
These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 78.8% |
SWE-Marathon v1.1Multi-hour coding — Twenty multi-hour programming jobs — rebuilding a library, cloning a product, training a model, making something faster. A run counts only when every check passes, hidden tests and interface review included. Higher is better. | — | 53.1% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 70.5% |
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. | — | 39.1% |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | — | 56.6% |
HealthBench ProfessionalHealth — Realistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | — | 60.5% |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | — | 30.8% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release date | Sep 1 2026 | Oct 12 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5.1vsGPT-6.1 SolMuse WondervsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Mythos 5.1vsGemini 4 ArgonMuse WondervsGemini 4 ArgonClaude Mythos 5.1vsGrok 4.7Muse WondervsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos 5.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse WondervsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Mythos 5.1vsMistral Large 4Muse WondervsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos 5.1vsKimi K3Muse WondervsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5.1 and Muse Wonder don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Claude Mythos 5.1 shipped 41 days before Muse Wonder, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos 5.1) vs 1M (Muse Wonder).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Mythos 5.1 and Muse Wonder don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.