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. | — | 80B |
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 | 256k |
| 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. | — | $0.12Parasail |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.80Parasail |
| — | $64.00Parasail · bf16 | |
| 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% | 70.6% |
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. | 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. | — | 44.3% |
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. | — | 62.8% |
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. | — | 36.2% |
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% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Release date | May 22 2025 | Feb 3 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 4vsGPT-6.1 TerraQwen3-Coder-NextvsGPT-6.1 TerraClaude Sonnet 4vsGemini 4 CarbonQwen3-Coder-NextvsGemini 4 CarbonClaude Sonnet 4vsMuse Spark OpenQwen3-Coder-NextvsMuse Spark OpenClaude Sonnet 4vsGrok 4.7Qwen3-Coder-NextvsGrok 4.7Claude Sonnet 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3-Coder-NextvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Claude Sonnet 4vsMistral Large 4Qwen3-Coder-NextvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 4 leads Qwen3-Coder-Next on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (SWE-Bench Verified). Claude Sonnet 4 shipped 257 days before Qwen3-Coder-Next, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 200k (Claude Sonnet 4) vs 256k (Qwen3-Coder-Next). Claude Sonnet 4 is closed, while Qwen3-Coder-Next is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Claude Sonnet 4 leads at 72.7% vs Qwen3-Coder-Next at 70.6%.