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 | 2.8T |
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 | 1M |
| 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 | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.20DeepInfra | — |
| $120DeepInfra · bf16 | — | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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% | — |
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% | — |
BenchCADCAD programming — Can the AI do mechanical design as code? Given a drawing or a description of an industrial part — a gear, a spring, a drill bit — it has to write or edit the parametric CAD program that builds it, and the program is run to check the shape really comes out right. Higher is better. | — | 92.7% |
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. | — | 65.7% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 38.1% |
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% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 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. | — | 70% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
Chartography · with toolsChart tasks — A chart-centred test run with tools available to the AI, reported separately from the chart-reading benchmarks above it. Higher is better. | — | 90.2% |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | — | 34.6% |
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 | Oct 23 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Haiku 5.5Kimi K3.1 ProvsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse GlimmervsGPT-6.1 SolKimi K3.1 ProvsGPT-6.1 SolMuse GlimmervsGemini 4 ArgonKimi K3.1 ProvsGemini 4 ArgonMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.7Kimi K3.1 ProvsGrok 4.7Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Kimi K3.1 ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse GlimmervsMistral Large 4Kimi K3.1 ProvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer and Kimi K3.1 Pro don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Muse Glimmer shipped 74 days before Kimi K3.1 Pro, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer has 30B parameters, while Kimi K3.1 Pro has 2.8T. Context windows are 128k (Muse Glimmer) vs 1M (Kimi K3.1 Pro).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Glimmer and Kimi K3.1 Pro don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.