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. | — | 397B |
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. | — | $0.40 |
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. | — | $1.60 |
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. | — | $0.32Alibaba |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $1.28Alibaba |
| — | $128Alibaba | |
| 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. | 93.9% | 77.7% |
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% | 34.7% |
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% | 73.3% |
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 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% | — |
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. | — | 89.6% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 86.1% | — |
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% | — |
GraphWalks BFS (256K–1M)Long context — breadth-first search F1 on the 200 GraphWalks problems with 256K to 1M tokens of context | 80% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Release date | Apr 7 2026 | Jun 1 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Mythos PreviewvsGPT-6.1 TerraQwen3.7-PlusvsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Mythos PreviewvsGemini 4 CarbonQwen3.7-PlusvsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Mythos PreviewvsMuse EmberQwen3.7-PlusvsMuse EmberClaude Mythos PreviewvsGrok 4.7Qwen3.7-PlusvsGrok 4.7Claude Mythos PreviewvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3.7-PlusvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Mythos PreviewvsMistral Large 4Qwen3.7-PlusvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Claude Mythos Preview leads Qwen3.7-Plus on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, Humanity's Last Exam, OSWorld-Verified). Only Qwen3.7-Plus has a verified first-party price for an available API: $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Mythos Preview. Claude Mythos Preview shipped 55 days before Qwen3.7-Plus, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Mythos Preview) vs 1M (Qwen3.7-Plus).
On SWE-Bench Verified, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9% vs Qwen3.7-Plus at 77.7%. On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 64.7% vs Qwen3.7-Plus at 34.7%. On OSWorld-Verified, Claude Mythos Preview leads at 79.6% vs Qwen3.7-Plus at 73.3%.