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/3B/11B/90B | 80B |
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 | ||
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. | $0.027Cloudflare | $0.12Parasail |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.201Cloudflare | $0.80Parasail |
| $15.45Cloudflare | $64.00Parasail · bf16 | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 44.3% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 70.6% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 62.8% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 36.2% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Qwen |
| Release date | Sep 25 2024 | Feb 3 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
LLaMA 3.2vsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3-Coder-NextvsClaude Haiku 5.5LLaMA 3.2vsGPT-6.1 TerraQwen3-Coder-NextvsGPT-6.1 TerraLLaMA 3.2vsGemini 4 CarbonQwen3-Coder-NextvsGemini 4 CarbonLLaMA 3.2vsGrok 4.7Qwen3-Coder-NextvsGrok 4.7LLaMA 3.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3-Coder-NextvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017LLaMA 3.2vsMistral Large 4Qwen3-Coder-NextvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
LLaMA 3.2 and Qwen3-Coder-Next don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. LLaMA 3.2 shipped 496 days before Qwen3-Coder-Next, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
LLaMA 3.2 has 1B/3B/11B/90B parameters, while Qwen3-Coder-Next has 80B. Context windows are 128k (LLaMA 3.2) vs 256k (Qwen3-Coder-Next).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — LLaMA 3.2 and Qwen3-Coder-Next don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.