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 | 256k |
| 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 | $2.00 |
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 | $0.20 |
| $45.00Meta list price | $300SpaceXSI 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. | — | 70.8% |
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% | — |
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 | SpaceXSI |
| Release date | Nov 9 2026 | Aug 28 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse EmbervsClaude Fable 5.2Grok Code Fast 1vsClaude Fable 5.2Muse EmbervsGPT-6.1 TerraGrok Code Fast 1vsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse EmbervsGemini 4 CarbonGrok Code Fast 1vsGemini 4 CarbonMuse EmbervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Grok Code Fast 1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse EmbervsMistral Large 4Grok Code Fast 1vsMistral Large 4Muse EmbervsKimi K3.1 ProGrok Code Fast 1vsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Muse Ember and Grok Code Fast 1 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 $1.00 per million input tokens, and $0.50 vs $2.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Grok Code Fast 1 shipped 438 days before Muse Ember, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Ember) vs 256k (Grok Code Fast 1).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Ember and Grok Code Fast 1 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.