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. | — | 816B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
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. | — | $1.25BaseTen |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $4.25BaseTen |
| — | $463Modal | |
| 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. | — | 60% |
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. | — | 76.4% |
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. | — | 89.2% |
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. | — | 61.8% |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 77.5% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1401 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | |
| Release date | Jul 21 2026 | Oct 15 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.5 Flash CybervsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse Spark OpenvsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.5 Flash CybervsGPT-6.1 SolMuse Spark OpenvsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.5 Flash CybervsGrok 4.7Muse Spark OpenvsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.5 Flash CybervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Spark OpenvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 3.5 Flash CybervsMistral Large 4Muse Spark OpenvsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.5 Flash CybervsKimi K3Muse Spark OpenvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and Muse Spark Open don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber shipped 86 days before Muse Spark Open, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber is closed, while Muse Spark Open is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber and Muse Spark Open don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.