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. | — | 72B |
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 | 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. | $1.25Meta | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $4.25Meta | — |
| $463Meta | — | |
| 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. | 50% | — |
ProgramBenchProgram reconstruction — The AI receives a working program and its documentation, then builds a replacement from scratch without the original source code, internet access or decompilation. The score is the percentage of 200 programs that pass every behavioral test. We record each model's best published mini-SWE-agent result, including higher reasoning efforts where available. Partial test-pass rates and almost-solved programs do not count toward this score. Equal scores share a rank here; the official board also uses partial progress to break ties. Higher is better. | 0% | — |
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. | — | 60.4% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 59.3% | — |
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. | 82.9% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Moonshot AI |
| Release date | Aug 5 2026 | Jun 17 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse Spark 1.2vsClaude Haiku 5.5Kimi-DevvsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse Spark 1.2vsGPT-6.1 SolKimi-DevvsGPT-6.1 SolMuse Spark 1.2vsGemini 4 ArgonKimi-DevvsGemini 4 ArgonMuse Spark 1.2vsGrok 4.7Kimi-DevvsGrok 4.7Muse Spark 1.2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Kimi-DevvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Spark 1.2vsMistral Large 4Kimi-DevvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark 1.2 and Kimi-Dev don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Kimi-Dev shipped 414 days before Muse Spark 1.2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Spark 1.2) vs 128k (Kimi-Dev). Muse Spark 1.2 is closed, while Kimi-Dev is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Spark 1.2 and Kimi-Dev don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.