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.
—80B
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.
—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.
—$0.12Parasail
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input.
—$0.80Parasail
—$64.00Parasail · bf16
Benchmarks
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.
55%44.3%
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.
77.4%70.6%
Overview
CompanyMetaQwen
Release dateApr 8 2026Feb 3 2026
AccessClosedOpen Weight
Model detailsView modelView model

Frequently asked questions

Muse Spark leads Qwen3-Coder-Next on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified). Qwen3-Coder-Next shipped 64 days before Muse Spark, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.

Muse Spark is closed, while Qwen3-Coder-Next is open weight.

On SWE-Bench Pro, Muse Spark leads at 55% vs Qwen3-Coder-Next at 44.3%. On SWE-Bench Verified, Muse Spark leads at 77.4% vs Qwen3-Coder-Next at 70.6%.