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 | 400k |
| 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. | $0.10 | $0.05 |
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. | $0.50 | $0.40 |
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. | $0.004 | $0.005 |
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. | — | $0.025OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.20OpenAI |
| $45.00Meta list price | $30.00OpenAI list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 54.7% |
AA Coding Agent IndexAgentic coding — Artificial Analysis' overall score for coding agents, combining three coding benchmarks with what each run costs and how many tokens it burns. It rates a model paired with a particular agent harness rather than the model alone, so the same model scores differently in different tools. Higher is better. | 46 | — |
Aider Polyglot (diff)Coding — editing code in six languages using the diff edit format | — | 48.4% |
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. | 40.9% | — |
τ²-bench · retailAgentic tasks — task success in the retail domain of the second-generation customer-service evaluation | — | 62.3% |
τ²-bench · airlineAgentic tasks — task success in the airline domain of the second-generation customer-service evaluation | — | 41% |
τ²-bench · telecomAgentic tasks — task success in the telecom domain of the second-generation customer-service evaluation | — | 35.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 8.7% |
AIME 2025Reasoning — single-answer accuracy on the 2025 invitational mathematics exam without tools | — | 85.2% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 71.2% |
AutomationBench (Artificial Analysis)Business workflows — The same business-workflow test, run by Artificial Analysis rather than by the lab, and graded strict pass@1: a workflow counts only if the whole of it is right on the first attempt. Read it as a separate board from the lab-run AutomationBench scores. Higher is better. | 37.8% | — |
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Overall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index, version 5.0 with tools; separate from earlier index editions | 36 | — |
CharXiv Reasoning · with toolsChart reasoning — The same chart-and-figure reasoning test, run with the AI allowed to use tools — writing code to inspect the image, for instance — rather than reading the chart unaided. Scores run higher than the unaided version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | — | 62.7% |
GDP.PDF (Artificial Analysis)Document comprehension — The same professional-PDF test, run by Artificial Analysis rather than by the lab. Read it as a separate board from the lab-run GDP.PDF scores. Higher is better. | 22.8% | — |
MMMU-Pro · standard and vision meanMultimodal reasoning — average across the standard and vision sets | — | 62.6% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 75.6% |
GraphWalks BFS (<128K)Long context — breadth-first traversal accuracy for inputs shorter than 128K tokens | — | 64% |
GraphWalks parents (<128K)Long context — parent-node retrieval accuracy for inputs shorter than 128K tokens | — | 43.8% |
OpenAI MRCR (2 needles) · 128KLong context — retrieval of two matching turns in the original MRCR evaluation | — | 43.2% |
OpenAI MRCR (2 needles) · 256KLong context — retrieval of two matching turns in the original MRCR evaluation | — | 34.9% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | OpenAI |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Aug 7 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse EmbervsClaude Fable 5.2GPT-5 nanovsClaude Fable 5.2Muse EmbervsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5 nanovsGemini 4 CarbonMuse EmbervsGrok 4.7GPT-5 nanovsGrok 4.7Muse EmbervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5 nanovsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse EmbervsMistral Large 4GPT-5 nanovsMistral Large 4Muse EmbervsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5 nanovsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Muse Ember and GPT-5 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. GPT-5 nano is cheaper on both input and output: $0.05 vs $0.10 per million input tokens, and $0.40 vs $0.50 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. GPT-5 nano shipped 459 days before Muse Ember, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Ember) vs 400k (GPT-5 nano).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Ember and GPT-5 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.