Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 30B |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $3.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.30DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $15.00Amazon Bedrock | $1.10Phala |
| 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. | 72.7% | 76% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 75.4% | 83.5% |
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. | 30% | — |
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. | — | 51.2% |
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. | — | 51.7% |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | — | 75.5% |
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. | — | 22% |
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. | — | 65.9% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 953 |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 78.8% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 74% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release date | May 22 2025 | Aug 10 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 4vsGPT-6 SolMuse GlimmervsGPT-6 SolClaude Sonnet 4vsGemini 3.8 FlashMuse GlimmervsGemini 3.8 FlashClaude Sonnet 4vsGrok 4.7Muse GlimmervsGrok 4.7Claude Sonnet 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Sonnet 4vsMistral Medium 3.5Muse GlimmervsMistral Medium 3.5Claude Sonnet 4vsKimi K3Muse GlimmervsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer leads Claude Sonnet 4 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond). Claude Sonnet 4 shipped 445 days before Muse Glimmer, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Claude Sonnet 4 is closed, while Muse Glimmer is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Muse Glimmer leads at 76% vs Claude Sonnet 4 at 72.7%. On GPQA Diamond, Muse Glimmer leads at 83.5% vs Claude Sonnet 4 at 75.4%.