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 | 200k |
| 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 | — |
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 | — |
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 | — |
| $45.00Meta 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. | — | 49.3% |
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 | — |
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. | — | 97.6% |
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% | — |
MATH-500Reasoning — accuracy on the 500-problem MATH subset | — | 97.9% |
DROPReasoning — three-shot token F1 on questions requiring reasoning over paragraphs | — | 80.6 |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 77.2% |
SimpleQAKnowledge — accuracy on short, fact-seeking questions in the original SimpleQA set | — | 13.8% |
MMLUGeneral knowledge — A 57-subject multiple-choice exam — history, law, medicine, maths — that was the standard measure of how much a model knows from 2020 until roughly 2024, when frontier scores crowded into the high 80s and labs moved on to harder tests. The scores here were published years apart under different testing setups, so read them as a historical record rather than a like-for-like ranking. Higher is better. | — | 86.9% |
MGSMMultilingual math — solving grade-school word problems translated into multiple languages | — | 92% |
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% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | OpenAI |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Jan 31 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse EmbervsClaude Fable 5.2o3-mini-highvsClaude Fable 5.2Muse EmbervsGemini 4 Carbono3-mini-highvsGemini 4 CarbonMuse EmbervsGrok 4.7o3-mini-highvsGrok 4.7Muse EmbervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017o3-mini-highvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse EmbervsMistral Large 4o3-mini-highvsMistral Large 4Muse EmbervsKimi K3.1 Proo3-mini-highvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Muse Ember and o3-mini-high don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Muse Ember has a verified first-party price for an available API: $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for o3-mini-high. o3-mini-high shipped 647 days before Muse Ember, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Ember) vs 200k (o3-mini-high).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Ember and o3-mini-high don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.