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 | $1.75 |
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 | $14.00 |
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. | $0.004 | $0.175 |
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. | — | $1.75Azure |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $14.00Azure |
| $45.00Meta list price | $1,050OpenAI 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. | — | 24% |
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. | — | 56.8% |
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. | — | 85% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 68% |
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 | — |
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% | — |
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. | — | 77.3% |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 64.7% |
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 | — |
GDPval (win/tie rate)Knowledge work — How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | — | 70.9% |
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% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1153 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | OpenAI |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Feb 5 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse EmbervsClaude Fable 5.2GPT-5.3-CodexvsClaude Fable 5.2Muse EmbervsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-5.3-CodexvsGemini 4 CarbonMuse EmbervsGrok 4.7GPT-5.3-CodexvsGrok 4.7Muse EmbervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.3-CodexvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse EmbervsMistral Large 4GPT-5.3-CodexvsMistral Large 4Muse EmbervsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-5.3-CodexvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Muse Ember and GPT-5.3-Codex don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Muse Ember is cheaper on both input and output: $0.10 vs $1.75 per million input tokens, and $0.50 vs $14.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. GPT-5.3-Codex shipped 277 days before Muse Ember, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Ember) vs 400k (GPT-5.3-Codex).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Ember and GPT-5.3-Codex don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.