Compare AI models
| 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. | $2.00 | $1.25 |
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. | $10.00 | $4.25 |
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. | $0.10 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $1.25Meta |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $4.25Meta |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 77.9% | 53.3% |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 65.4% | 57.2% |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 19.6% | 20% |
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. | 0.7% | — |
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. | — | 61.5% |
FrontierSWE V2Ultra-long-horizon coding — Engineering problems that would occupy a person for days: systems implementation, performance work, scientific computing and AI research, with up to twenty hours per task. Partial credit is awarded, because finishing one outright is still rare. Higher is better. | 55% | — |
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. | 57.4% | — |
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. | — | 80% |
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Agentic scientific computing — The same command-line setup as Terminal-Bench, pointed at scientific work: the AI has to drive research tooling and computational workflows through to a result, rather than administer a machine. Version 0.1 is the first release of the task set, and scores run lower than on the general board. Higher is better. | 57.6% | — |
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. | — | 88.1% |
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. | — | 54.7% |
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. | — | 75.6% |
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. | — | 62.1% |
LAB-Bench 2Biology — Everyday tasks from a working biology lab — reading protocols, interpreting figures and sequence data, and answering the practical questions a researcher hits at the bench. Higher is better. | 88.8% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 69.2% | — |
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. | — | 80.8% |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | 39.5% | — |
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. | 51.3% | — |
TaxEval v2Tax questions — A set of real tax questions created by Vals AI — can the AI give accurate answers about tax rules and filings? Higher is better. | — | 79.72% |
MedScribeMedical admin work — Can the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | — | 88.89% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 88.4% |
LVBenchVideo understanding — Can the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | 91.7% | — |
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. | — | 76.3% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | |
| Release date | Sep 30 2026 | Jul 9 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 4 ArgonvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Muse Spark 1.1vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 4 ArgonvsGPT-6.1 SolMuse Spark 1.1vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 4 ArgonvsGrok 4.7Muse Spark 1.1vsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 ArgonvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse Spark 1.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 4 ArgonvsMistral Medium 3.5Muse Spark 1.1vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 4 ArgonvsKimi K3Muse Spark 1.1vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 4 Argon leads Muse Spark 1.1 on 2 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, Finance Agent v2, Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark). Muse Spark 1.1 is cheaper on both input and output: $1.25 vs $2.00 per million input tokens, and $4.25 vs $10.00 per million output tokens. Muse Spark 1.1 shipped 83 days before Gemini 4 Argon, 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 DeepSWE 1.1, Gemini 4 Argon leads at 77.9% vs Muse Spark 1.1 at 53.3%. On Finance Agent v2, Gemini 4 Argon leads at 65.4% vs Muse Spark 1.1 at 57.2%. On Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark, Muse Spark 1.1 leads at 20% vs Gemini 4 Argon at 19.6%.