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. | $0.25DeepInfra | $0.30DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.95DeepInfra | $1.20DeepInfra |
| 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. | 66% | 76% |
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% |
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. | 74.8% | — |
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% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 15.9% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 83.5% |
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 | DeepSeek | Meta |
| Release date | Aug 21 2025 | Aug 10 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek V3.1vsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse GlimmervsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V3.1vsGPT-6.1 SolMuse GlimmervsGPT-6.1 SolDeepSeek V3.1vsGemini 4 ArgonMuse GlimmervsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek V3.1vsGrok 4.7Muse GlimmervsGrok 4.7DeepSeek V3.1vsMistral Large 4Muse GlimmervsMistral Large 4DeepSeek V3.1vsKimi K3Muse GlimmervsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer leads DeepSeek V3.1 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (SWE-Bench Verified). DeepSeek V3.1 shipped 354 days before Muse Glimmer, 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 SWE-Bench Verified, Muse Glimmer leads at 76% vs DeepSeek V3.1 at 66%.