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 |
| 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 |
| — | $45.00Meta list price | |
| 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. | 48% | — |
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. | 43.3% | — |
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. | 76.2% | — |
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. | 50% | — |
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 |
LiveCodeBench ProCompetitive programming — Elo rating on competitive programming problems in LiveCodeBench Pro | 2439 | — |
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% |
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. | 54.2% | — |
APEX-AgentsExpert agentic work — expert-level agentic work tasks (AI Productivity Index) | 18.4% | — |
MCP Atlas · original harnessMulti-step tool use — pass rate under the original tool-use harness, before Scale changed the judge and retry handling in April 2026 | 54.1% | — |
τ²-bench · retailAgentic tasks — task success in the retail domain of the second-generation customer-service evaluation | 85.3% | — |
τ²-bench · telecomAgentic tasks — task success in the telecom domain of the second-generation customer-service evaluation | 98% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 59.2% | — |
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. | 37.5% | — |
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. | 45.8% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 31.1% | — |
AIME 2025Reasoning — single-answer accuracy on the 2025 invitational mathematics exam without tools | 95% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 91.9% | — |
SimpleQA VerifiedKnowledge — accuracy on the vetted factual questions in SimpleQA Verified | 72.1% | — |
MMMLUKnowledge — average accuracy on multilingual translations of MMLU | 91.8% | — |
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 |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 81.4% | — |
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% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 81% | — |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 77% | — |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwiseLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside an enormous document (around 1 million tokens — many books). Higher is better. | 26.3% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | |
| Release date | Nov 18 2025 | Nov 9 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.0 ProvsClaude Fable 5.2Muse EmbervsClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 3.0 ProvsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse EmbervsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 3.0 ProvsGrok 4.7Muse EmbervsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.0 ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse EmbervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 3.0 ProvsMistral Large 4Muse EmbervsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.0 ProvsKimi K3.1 ProMuse EmbervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Gemini 3.0 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 Gemini 3.0 Pro. Gemini 3.0 Pro shipped 356 days before Muse Ember, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.0 Pro) vs 1M (Muse Ember).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 3.0 Pro and Muse Ember don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.