Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
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 | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $2.00 | — |
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 | — |
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% | 75.4% |
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% | 66.9% |
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% | 49.4% |
CheatBenchCheating rate — Measures how often AI agents try to cheat on difficult assignments, such as reading hidden answers, copying work or manipulating grading. The overall score gives equal weight to ten categories; the sycophancy category measures how far an agent shifts its beliefs toward a user's stated views. Scores describe each model in its tested agent setup, and task success is measured separately. Lower is better. | — | 39% |
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% | — |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | — | 41.6% |
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% | — |
SWEAtlas CodeBase QnACodebase understanding — Questions about how an unfamiliar codebase actually works — where something is handled, what a change would touch — answered by reading the repository rather than editing it. Tests understanding rather than patch-writing. Higher is better. | — | 59.4% |
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. | — | 88.8% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 64.9% |
DeepSearchQAAgentic browsing — Questions that cannot be answered from one page: the AI has to search the web, follow the trail across several sources, and put the pieces together into an answer. Higher is better. | — | 89.4% |
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% | — |
Agentic IF Index (Internal)Instruction following — Meta's internal measure of whether a model keeps following the instructions it was given while working as an agent — over a long run of tool calls, not just in a single reply. Higher is better. | — | 57.8% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1754 |
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% | — |
MRCR · 256k-512kLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document, here across inputs of roughly 256k to 512k tokens — several books' worth of text. Higher is better. | — | 98.5% |
MRCR · 512k-1MLong context — The same buried-detail retrieval test run on even longer inputs, from roughly 512k up to a million tokens. Scores usually slip as the document grows, so read it against the shorter span above. Higher is better. | — | 98.1% |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1448 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | |
| Release date | Sep 30 2026 | Sep 2 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 4 ArgonvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Muse Spark 1.3vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 4 ArgonvsGPT-6.1 SolMuse Spark 1.3vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 4 ArgonvsGrok 4.7Muse Spark 1.3vsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 ArgonvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse Spark 1.3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 4 ArgonvsMistral Medium 3.5Muse Spark 1.3vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 4 ArgonvsKimi K3Muse Spark 1.3vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 4 Argon leads Muse Spark 1.3 on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, OSWorld 2.0, AutomationBench). Only Gemini 4 Argon has a verified first-party API price: $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Spark 1.3. Muse Spark 1.3 shipped 28 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 1.3 at 75.4%. On OSWorld 2.0, Gemini 4 Argon leads at 69.2% vs Muse Spark 1.3 at 66.9%. On AutomationBench, Gemini 4 Argon leads at 51.3% vs Muse Spark 1.3 at 49.4%.