Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | 1B/4B/12B/27B | >1T |
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. | 128k | 256k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $1.20 |
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. | — | $6.00 |
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. | $0.04DeepInfra | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.05Parasail | — |
| $10.50Parasail · bf16 | $540Qwen list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 3% | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | 29.7% | — |
HumanEvalFunction synthesis — 164 small Python problems: the AI is given a function's description and has to write the working function. This was the coding benchmark of the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 era, before the field moved to fixing real bugs in real repositories. Higher is better. | 87.8% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 42.4% | — |
GSM8KGrade-school math — Grade-school maths word problems that take a few steps of arithmetic to work through. It separated the models of 2022 and 2023 sharply, then saturated. One caveat on the historical numbers: OpenAI included part of the GSM8K training set in GPT-4's pre-training mix, so GPT-4's score is not a clean few-shot result. Higher is better. | 95.9% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 64.9% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Mar 12 2025 | Sep 24 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemma 3vsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3-MaxvsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemma 3vsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3-MaxvsGPT-6.1 SolGemma 3vsMuse Spark OpenQwen3-MaxvsMuse Spark OpenGemma 3vsGrok 4.7Qwen3-MaxvsGrok 4.7Gemma 3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemma 3vsMistral Large 4Qwen3-MaxvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Gemma 3 and Qwen3-Max don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Qwen3-Max has a verified first-party API price: $1.20 per million input tokens and $6.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemma 3. Gemma 3 shipped 196 days before Qwen3-Max, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemma 3 has 1B/4B/12B/27B parameters, while Qwen3-Max has >1T. Context windows are 128k (Gemma 3) vs 256k (Qwen3-Max). Gemma 3 is open weight, while Qwen3-Max is closed.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemma 3 and Qwen3-Max don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.