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. | — | 253B |
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 | 128k |
| 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. | $8.00Verified organizations only | — |
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 | — |
| $3,600Anthropic list price | — | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 66.3% |
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. | 75.3% | — |
De novo binder design (24 hr)Protein design — de novo protein binder design within a 24-hour budget, as reported by Anthropic | 85.1% | — |
CyScenarioBenchCybersecurity — multi-step cybersecurity scenarios; each lab runs its own unique task set, so scores from different labs do not compare | 76.3% | — |
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 | 89.6% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 76% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Apr 7 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos 5.2vsGPT-6.1 TerraLlama Nemotron Ultra 253BvsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Mythos 5.2vsGemini 4 CarbonLlama Nemotron Ultra 253BvsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Mythos 5.2vsMuse EmberLlama Nemotron Ultra 253BvsMuse EmberClaude Mythos 5.2vsGrok 4.7Llama Nemotron Ultra 253BvsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos 5.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Llama Nemotron Ultra 253BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos 5.2vsMistral Large 4Llama Nemotron Ultra 253BvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Claude Mythos 5.2 and Llama Nemotron Ultra 253B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Claude Mythos 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 Llama Nemotron Ultra 253B. Claude Mythos 5.2 requires organization verification. Llama Nemotron Ultra 253B shipped 581 days before Claude Mythos 5.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos 5.2) vs 128k (Llama Nemotron Ultra 253B). Claude Mythos 5.2 is closed, while Llama Nemotron Ultra 253B is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Mythos 5.2 and Llama Nemotron Ultra 253B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.