Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | 816B | 397B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.60 |
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. | — | $3.60 |
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. | — | $0.065Alibaba |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.15DeepInfra |
| — | $26.00Alibaba | |
| 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. | — | 78% |
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. | — | 76.4% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
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. | 60% | — |
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. | 76.4% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 52.5% |
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. | 89.2% | — |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | 61.8% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 69% |
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. | — | 28.7% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 88.4% |
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. | — | 62.2% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1401 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 80.8% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 85% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Qwen |
| Release date | Oct 15 2026 | Feb 16 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse Spark OpenvsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse Spark OpenvsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.5vsGPT-6.1 SolMuse Spark OpenvsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.5vsGemini 4 ArgonMuse Spark OpenvsGrok 4.7Qwen3.5vsGrok 4.7Muse Spark OpenvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse Spark OpenvsMistral Large 4Qwen3.5vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Muse Spark Open and Qwen3.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Qwen3.5 has a verified first-party API price: $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Spark Open. Qwen3.5 shipped 241 days before Muse Spark Open, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Spark Open has 816B parameters, while Qwen3.5 has 397B. Context windows are 1M (Muse Spark Open) vs 1M (Qwen3.5).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Spark Open and Qwen3.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.