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 | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $1.25 |
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. | — | $4.25 |
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. | — | $0.15 |
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. | — | $1.25Meta |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $4.25Meta |
| — | $463Meta list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
CharXiv Reasoning · with toolsChart reasoning — The same chart-and-figure reasoning test, run with the AI allowed to use tools — writing code to inspect the image, for instance — rather than reading the chart unaided. Scores run higher than the unaided version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | 93.2% | 87.6% |
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. | — | 50% |
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. | 77.8% | — |
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. | 93.9% | — |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 87.3% | — |
SWE-Bench MultimodalMultimodal coding — Real bug reports that arrive with pictures attached — a screenshot, a mockup, a page rendering wrongly — so the AI has to read the image as well as the code to work out what to fix. Higher is better. | 59% | — |
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. | — | 59.3% |
SWEAtlas CodeBase QnACodebase understanding — Questions about how an unfamiliar codebase actually works — where something is handled, what a change would touch — answered by reading the repository rather than editing it. Tests understanding rather than patch-writing. Higher is better. | — | 46.2% |
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. | — | 82.9% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | 82% | — |
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. | — | 61.6% |
DeepSearchQAAgentic browsing — Questions that cannot be answered from one page: the AI has to search the web, follow the trail across several sources, and put the pieces together into an answer. Higher is better. | — | 85.9% |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 83.1% | — |
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. | 56.8% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 64.7% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 94.5% | — |
Agentic IF Index (Internal)Instruction following — Meta's internal measure of whether a model keeps following the instructions it was given while working as an agent — over a long run of tool calls, not just in a single reply. Higher is better. | — | 46.2% |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | — | 47.6% |
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. | 79.6% | — |
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. | — | 38.2% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1615 |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 86.1% | — |
ZeroBench (tools, pass@5)Visual reasoning — percentage of 100 visual problems solved at least once in five attempts with tools | — | 54% |
SimpleVQA (with tools)Visual reasoning — accuracy on 2,024 English and Chinese visual questions with tools | — | 75% |
GraphWalks BFS (256K–1M)Long context — breadth-first search F1 on the 200 GraphWalks problems with 256K to 1M tokens of context | 80% | — |
MRCR · 256k-512kLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document, here across inputs of roughly 256k to 512k tokens — several books' worth of text. Higher is better. | — | 66.3% |
MRCR · 512k-1MLong context — The same buried-detail retrieval test run on even longer inputs, from roughly 512k up to a million tokens. Scores usually slip as the document grows, so read it against the shorter span above. Higher is better. | — | 55.5% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release date | Apr 7 2026 | Aug 5 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos PreviewvsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse Spark 1.2vsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Mythos PreviewvsGemini 4 CarbonMuse Spark 1.2vsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Mythos PreviewvsGrok 4.7Muse Spark 1.2vsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos PreviewvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Spark 1.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos PreviewvsMistral Large 4Muse Spark 1.2vsMistral Large 4Claude Mythos PreviewvsKimi K3.1 ProMuse Spark 1.2vsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Claude Mythos Preview leads Muse Spark 1.2 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (CharXiv Reasoning). Only Muse Spark 1.2 has a verified first-party price for an available API: $1.25 per million input tokens and $4.25 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Mythos Preview. Claude Mythos Preview shipped 120 days before Muse Spark 1.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos Preview) vs 1M (Muse Spark 1.2).
On CharXiv Reasoning · with tools, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.2% vs Muse Spark 1.2 at 87.6%.