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 | 1.05M |
| 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 | $1.00 |
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 | $5.00 |
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 | $0.05 |
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. | — | $0.50OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $2.50OpenAI |
| $45.00Meta list price | $225OpenAI | |
| 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. | 40.9% | 50.3% |
OpenAI Factuality (Internal)Factual error rate — OpenAI's internal test uses prompts designed to provoke factual mistakes. The score is the percentage of answers containing at least one factual error, at the model's best published reasoning effort. It is not the percentage of individual claims that are wrong or an error rate for everyday use. Lower is better. | — | 4.3% |
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. | — | 100% |
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-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. | — | 58.3% |
OSWorld 2.1 · offlineAgentic 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. | — | 74.2% |
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. | — | 60% |
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 | — |
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-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 85.5% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | OpenAI |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Oct 26 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse EmbervsClaude Fable 5.2GPT-6.1 TerravsClaude Fable 5.2Muse EmbervsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-6.1 TerravsGemini 4 CarbonMuse EmbervsGrok 4.7GPT-6.1 TerravsGrok 4.7Muse EmbervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-6.1 TerravsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse EmbervsMistral Large 4GPT-6.1 TerravsMistral Large 4Muse EmbervsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-6.1 TerravsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
GPT-6.1 Terra leads Muse Ember on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench 4.0). Muse Ember is cheaper on both input and output: $0.10 vs $1.00 per million input tokens, and $0.50 vs $5.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. GPT-6.1 Terra shipped 14 days before Muse Ember, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Ember) vs 1.05M (GPT-6.1 Terra).
On Terminal-Bench 4.0, GPT-6.1 Terra leads at 50.3% vs Muse Ember at 40.9%.