Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
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 |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic 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. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 79% |
SWE-Marathon v1.1Multi-hour coding — Twenty multi-hour programming jobs — rebuilding a library, cloning a product, training a model, making something faster. A run counts only when every check passes, hidden tests and interface review included. Higher is better. | — | 57.5% |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 75.3% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | — | 45.4% |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | — | 59.1% |
HealthBench ProfessionalHealth — Realistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | — | 62.3% |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | — | 33.2% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | |
| Release date | Feb 5 2025 | Oct 12 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse Wonder FullvsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsGPT-6.1 SolMuse Wonder FullvsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7Muse Wonder FullvsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Wonder FullvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4Muse Wonder FullvsMistral Large 4Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsKimi K3Muse Wonder FullvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Muse Wonder Full don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite shipped 614 days before Muse Wonder Full, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite) vs 1M (Muse Wonder Full).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Muse Wonder Full don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.