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 | ||
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. | — | $0.0699Wafer |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $1.40Wafer |
| — | $83.98Wafer · fp4 | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 41.82% |
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% | 48.2% |
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. | — | 72% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 42.6% |
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. | — | 66.9% |
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% | — |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 28.3% |
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. | — | 88.2% |
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% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | — | 84.5% |
ExploitBenchCybersecurity — A 'capability ladder' for security research, built by CMU researchers: the AI is given known bugs in Chrome's V8 engine and scored on how far it gets toward a working exploit inside a research sandbox — from understanding the patch to triggering a crash. Higher is better. | — | 54.4% |
ExploitGym · 6-hour budgetCybersecurity — Can an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 6-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 130 |
ExploitGym · 2-hour budgetCybersecurity — Can an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 2-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 105 |
RiemannBenchAdvanced mathematics — mathematical problem-solving evaluation published by Surge | 80% | — |
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. | — | 62.5% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 28.5% |
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 | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1769 |
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% | — |
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 | Z.ai | |
| Release date | Oct 28 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 4 CarbonvsClaude Haiku 5.5GLM-5.3vsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 4 CarbonvsGPT-6.1 TerraGLM-5.3vsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 4 CarbonvsMuse Spark OpenGLM-5.3vsMuse Spark OpenGemini 4 CarbonvsGrok 4.7GLM-5.3vsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 CarbonvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GLM-5.3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 CarbonvsMistral Large 4GLM-5.3vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Gemini 4 Carbon leads GLM-5.3 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (Terminal-Bench 4.0, AutomationBench). GLM-5.3 shipped 75 days before Gemini 4 Carbon, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemini 4 Carbon is closed, while GLM-5.3 is open weight.
On Terminal-Bench 4.0, Gemini 4 Carbon leads at 65.2% vs GLM-5.3 at 41.82%. On AutomationBench, Gemini 4 Carbon leads at 53.9% vs GLM-5.3 at 48.2%.