Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | 30B | 1T |
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. | 128k | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
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. | $0.30DeepInfra | $0.57Novita |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.20DeepInfra | $2.30Novita |
| $120DeepInfra · bf16 | $229Novita · fp8 | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 76% | 65.8% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 83.5% | 75.1% |
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. | — | 10% |
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. | 51.2% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 51.7% | — |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 75.5% | — |
DeepSearchQAAgentic browsing — Questions that cannot be answered from one page: the AI has to search the web, follow the trail across several sources, and put the pieces together into an answer. Higher is better. | 74.6% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · text only, no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — accuracy on the 2,158 text-only questions without tools | 22% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 4.7% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | 77% | — |
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. | 65.9% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 953 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 78.8% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Moonshot AI |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Jul 11 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Fable 5.2Kimi K2vsClaude Fable 5.2Muse GlimmervsGPT-6.1 TerraKimi K2vsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse GlimmervsGemini 4 CarbonKimi K2vsGemini 4 CarbonMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.7Kimi K2vsGrok 4.7Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Kimi K2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse GlimmervsMistral Large 4Kimi K2vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer leads Kimi K2 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond). Kimi K2 shipped 395 days before Muse Glimmer, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer has 30B parameters, while Kimi K2 has 1T. Context windows are 128k (Muse Glimmer) vs 128k (Kimi K2).
On SWE-Bench Verified, Muse Glimmer leads at 76% vs Kimi K2 at 65.8%. On GPQA Diamond, Muse Glimmer leads at 83.5% vs Kimi K2 at 75.1%.