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. | 1.6T | — |
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. | 1M | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.10 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $0.50 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.004 |
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. | $0.894StreamLake | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.50Relace | — |
| $255Relace · fp4 | $45.00Meta list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
CheatBenchCheating rate — Measures how often AI agents try to cheat on difficult assignments, such as reading hidden answers, copying work or manipulating grading. The overall score gives equal weight to ten categories; the sycophancy category measures how far an agent shifts its beliefs toward a user's stated views. Scores describe each model in its tested agent setup, and task success is measured separately. Lower is better. | 75.1% | — |
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. | 14% | — |
AA Coding Agent IndexAgentic coding — Artificial Analysis' overall score for coding agents, combining three coding benchmarks with what each run costs and how many tokens it burns. It rates a model paired with a particular agent harness rather than the model alone, so the same model scores differently in different tools. Higher is better. | — | 46 |
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. | 93.5% | — |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | — | 40.9% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 83.4% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 90.1% | — |
AutomationBench (Artificial Analysis)Business workflows — The same business-workflow test, run by Artificial Analysis rather than by the lab, and graded strict pass@1: a workflow counts only if the whole of it is right on the first attempt. Read it as a separate board from the lab-run AutomationBench scores. Higher is better. | — | 37.8% |
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Overall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index, version 5.0 with tools; separate from earlier index editions | — | 36 |
GDP.PDF (Artificial Analysis)Document comprehension — The same professional-PDF test, run by Artificial Analysis rather than by the lab. Read it as a separate board from the lab-run GDP.PDF scores. Higher is better. | — | 22.8% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | Meta |
| Release date | Apr 24 2026 | Nov 9 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-ProvsClaude Fable 5.2Muse EmbervsClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek-V4-ProvsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse EmbervsGPT-6.1 TerraDeepSeek-V4-ProvsGemini 4 CarbonMuse EmbervsGemini 4 CarbonDeepSeek-V4-ProvsGrok 4.7Muse EmbervsGrok 4.7DeepSeek-V4-ProvsMistral Large 4Muse EmbervsMistral Large 4DeepSeek-V4-ProvsKimi K3.1 ProMuse EmbervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
DeepSeek-V4-Pro and Muse Ember don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Muse Ember has a verified first-party price for an available API: $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for DeepSeek-V4-Pro. DeepSeek-V4-Pro shipped 199 days before Muse Ember, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (DeepSeek-V4-Pro) vs 1M (Muse Ember). DeepSeek-V4-Pro is open weight, while Muse Ember is closed.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — DeepSeek-V4-Pro and Muse Ember don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.