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 | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $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 | — |
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 | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.25Google | — |
| $185Google list price | — | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 54.2% | 55% |
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. | 54% | 67.3% |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 74% | 53.3% |
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. | 66% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | — | 2.9% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 14.3% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 16.5% |
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. | — | 77.4% |
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. | — | 10% |
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. | — | 82.2% |
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. | — | 17% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 49.4% |
BU BenchBrowser agent — Can the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | 49% | — |
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. | — | 50.4% |
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. | — | 42.5% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 89.5% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1140 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 88.9% |
BabyVisionVisual reasoning — Tests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 39.9% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 80.4% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | |
| Release date | Jul 21 2026 | Apr 8 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse SparkvsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsGPT-6.1 SolMuse SparkvsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7Muse SparkvsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse SparkvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4Muse SparkvsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsKimi K3Muse SparkvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark leads Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite on 2 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified). Only Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has a verified first-party API price: $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Spark. Muse Spark shipped 104 days before Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Muse Spark leads at 55% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite at 54.2%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Muse Spark leads at 67.3% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite at 54%. On OSWorld-Verified, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads at 74% vs Muse Spark at 53.3%.