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 | 480B |
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 | 256k |
| 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 | $0.30DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.20DeepInfra | $1.00DeepInfra |
| $120DeepInfra · bf16 | $110DeepInfra · turbo · fp4 | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 20% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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 | Qwen |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Jul 22 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3-CodervsClaude Fable 5.2Muse GlimmervsGPT-6.1 TerraQwen3-CodervsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse GlimmervsGemini 4 CarbonQwen3-CodervsGemini 4 CarbonMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.7Qwen3-CodervsGrok 4.7Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3-CodervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse GlimmervsMistral Large 4Qwen3-CodervsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer and Qwen3-Coder don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Qwen3-Coder shipped 384 days before Muse Glimmer, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer has 30B parameters, while Qwen3-Coder has 480B. Context windows are 128k (Muse Glimmer) vs 256k (Qwen3-Coder).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Glimmer and Qwen3-Coder don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.