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. | — | $4.00 |
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. | — | $20.00 |
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. | — | $0.20 |
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. | — | $4.00Meta |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $20.00Meta |
| — | $1,800Meta list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 53.9% | 39.1% |
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. | — | 57% |
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% | — |
ProgramBenchProgram reconstruction — The AI receives a working program and its documentation, then builds a replacement from scratch without the original source code, internet access or decompilation. The score is the percentage of 200 programs that pass every behavioral test. We record each model's best published mini-SWE-agent result, including higher reasoning efforts where available. Partial test-pass rates and almost-solved programs do not count toward this score. Equal scores share a rank here; the official board also uses partial progress to break ties. Higher is better. | — | 5.5% |
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. | — | 50.4% |
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. | — | 78.8% |
SWE-sweepAgentic coding — subtask-weighted reward for software engineering with the mini-swe-agent harness | 9.6% | — |
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. | 61.2% | — |
SWE-Marathon v1.1Multi-hour coding — Twenty multi-hour programming jobs — rebuilding a library, cloning a product, training a model, making something faster. A run counts only when every check passes, hidden tests and interface review included. Higher is better. | — | 53.1% |
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. | 65.2% | — |
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. | 64.8% | — |
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. | — | 70.5% |
RiemannBenchAdvanced mathematics — mathematical problem-solving evaluation published by Surge | 80% | — |
Agents’ Last Exam v1.1Agentic computer use — averaged rubric score on the 122-task October 17, 2026 v1.1 set, using ALE-Claw with a five-hour limit; separate from earlier ALE scores | 77.4% | — |
CWE-bench v1Security patching — Collinear AI’s programmatically graded security-patch pass@1 rate; separate from exploit-generation benchmarks | 71% | — |
ExploitGym (causal pass rate) · 10-hour budgetCybersecurity — share of tasks producing a verified exploit of the intended vulnerability, with mitigations off; not a count of solved instances | 54.8% | — |
ExploitGym (causal pass rate) · 6-hour budgetCybersecurity — share of tasks producing a verified exploit of the intended vulnerability, with mitigations off; not a count of solved instances | 53.5% | — |
SEC-bench Pro (JavaScript)Vulnerability discovery — pass@1 on the 183-task May 2026 JavaScript-engine split, averaged over three trials with the Antigravity harness | 88.2% | — |
OSWorld 2.1 (offline)Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.1, in its offline setting. Scores are not comparable with version 2.0. Higher is better. | 81.5% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | — | 56.6% |
HealthBench ProfessionalHealth — Realistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | — | 60.5% |
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Overall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index, version 5.0 with tools; separate from earlier index editions | 59 | — |
Vals Index v2.2Professional work — Vals AI composite evaluation of professional tasks, version 2.2 | 70.4% | — |
Vending-Bench 2 (USD)Business simulation — ending bank balance in US dollars in Andon Labs’ vending-business simulation; higher is better | 16484 | — |
Chartography · no toolsChart tasks — The same chart-centred test with no tools: the AI has to read each chart unaided. Scores run far lower than the with-tools version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | 72.5% | — |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | — | 30.8% |
Blueprint-Bench 2Spatial reasoning — Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | 58.6% | — |
GraphWalks BFS (256K–1M)Long context — breadth-first search F1 on the 200 GraphWalks problems with 256K to 1M tokens of context | 96.2% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | |
| Release date | Oct 28 2026 | Oct 12 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 4 CarbonvsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse WondervsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 4 CarbonvsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse WondervsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 4 CarbonvsGrok 4.7Muse WondervsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 CarbonvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse WondervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 CarbonvsMistral Large 4Muse WondervsMistral Large 4Gemini 4 CarbonvsKimi K3.1 ProMuse WondervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Gemini 4 Carbon leads Muse Wonder on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (AutomationBench). Only Muse Wonder has a verified first-party price for an available API: $4.00 per million input tokens and $20.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 4 Carbon. Muse Wonder shipped 16 days before Gemini 4 Carbon, 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 AutomationBench, Gemini 4 Carbon leads at 53.9% vs Muse Wonder at 39.1%.