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. | 200k | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
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. | $15.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $75.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
| $6,750Amazon Bedrock | — | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 46.5% | 61.7% |
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. | 43% | — |
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. | 74.5% | — |
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. | — | 73.7% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 57% |
MCP Atlas · original harnessMulti-step tool use — pass rate under the original tool-use harness, before Scale changed the judge and retry handling in April 2026 | 40.9% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 80.9% | — |
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. | 44.4% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 77.1% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | SpaceXSI |
| Release date | Aug 5 2025 | Mar 19 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 4.1vsGPT-6.1 TerraComposer 2vsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Opus 4.1vsGemini 4 CarbonComposer 2vsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Opus 4.1vsMuse EmberComposer 2vsMuse EmberClaude Opus 4.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Composer 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Opus 4.1vsMistral Large 4Composer 2vsMistral Large 4Claude Opus 4.1vsKimi K3.1 ProComposer 2vsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Composer 2 leads Claude Opus 4.1 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench 2.0). Claude Opus 4.1 shipped 226 days before Composer 2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On Terminal-Bench 2.0, Composer 2 leads at 61.7% vs Claude Opus 4.1 at 46.5%.