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 | 1M |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 34% | — |
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. | 72.5% | — |
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. | — | 79% |
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. | — | 57.5% |
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. | — | 75.3% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. 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. | — | 45.4% |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | — | 59.1% |
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. | — | 62.3% |
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. | — | 33.2% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release date | May 22 2025 | Oct 12 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 4vsGPT-6.1 SolMuse Wonder FullvsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Opus 4vsGemini 4 ArgonMuse Wonder FullvsGemini 4 ArgonClaude Opus 4vsGrok 4.7Muse Wonder FullvsGrok 4.7Claude Opus 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Wonder FullvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Opus 4vsMistral Large 4Muse Wonder FullvsMistral Large 4Claude Opus 4vsKimi K3Muse Wonder FullvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4 and Muse Wonder Full don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Claude Opus 4 shipped 508 days before Muse Wonder Full, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 200k (Claude Opus 4) vs 1M (Muse Wonder Full).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Claude Opus 4 and Muse Wonder Full don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.