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. | 1M | 256k |
| 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. | $0.30 | $0.30 |
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. | $2.50 | $1.50 |
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. | $0.03 | — |
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. | $0.15Google AI Studio | $0.12Parasail |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.25Google AI Studio | $0.80Parasail |
| $185Google list price | $64.00Parasail · bf16 | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 19% | — |
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 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. | — | 70.6% |
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% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Apr 17 2025 | Feb 3 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.5 FlashvsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3-Coder-NextvsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 2.5 FlashvsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3-Coder-NextvsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 2.5 FlashvsMuse Spark OpenQwen3-Coder-NextvsMuse Spark OpenGemini 2.5 FlashvsGrok 4.7Qwen3-Coder-NextvsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.5 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3-Coder-NextvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 2.5 FlashvsMistral Large 4Qwen3-Coder-NextvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3-Coder-Next don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Both charge $0.30 per million input tokens. Qwen3-Coder-Next is cheaper on output: $1.50 vs $2.50 per million tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Gemini 2.5 Flash shipped 292 days before Qwen3-Coder-Next, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 2.5 Flash) vs 256k (Qwen3-Coder-Next). Gemini 2.5 Flash is closed, while Qwen3-Coder-Next is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 2.5 Flash and Qwen3-Coder-Next don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.