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. | 671B | — |
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. | 128k | — |
| 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. | $0.27SiliconFlow | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.00SiliconFlow | — |
| $104SiliconFlow · fp8 | — | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 57.8% | 79.8% |
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. | — | 54% |
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. | 68.4% | — |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | — | 27.7% |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic 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. Higher is better. | — | 18% |
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. | — | 81% |
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. | 74.9% | — |
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. | — | 73% |
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. | — | 69.3% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 80.7% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1091 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | SpaceXSI |
| Release date | Sep 22 2025 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsClaude Haiku 5.5Composer 2.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGPT-6.1 SolComposer 2.5vsGPT-6.1 SolDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGemini 4 ArgonComposer 2.5vsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsMuse Spark OpenComposer 2.5vsMuse Spark OpenDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsMistral Large 4Composer 2.5vsMistral Large 4DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsKimi K3Composer 2.5vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 leads DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (SWE-Bench Multilingual). DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus shipped 238 days before Composer 2.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus is open weight, while Composer 2.5 is closed.
On SWE-Bench Multilingual, Composer 2.5 leads at 79.8% vs DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus at 57.8%.