Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
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 | 1.05M |
| 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. | — | $20.00 |
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. | — | $100.00 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $2.00 |
| — | $9,000OpenAI list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 8.5% | — |
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. | 79% | — |
SWE-Marathon v1.1Multi-hour coding — Twenty multi-hour programming jobs — rebuilding a library, cloning a product, training a model, making something faster. A run counts only when every check passes, hidden tests and interface review included. Higher is better. | 57.5% | — |
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. | 75.3% | — |
ExploitGym (remote target)Cybersecurity — Can the model exploit a vulnerability it was told about, on a remote target, and show that it used that vulnerability? OpenAI reported this as a percentage at the GPT-6 Cyber launch. It is a different measurement from the timed ExploitGym pass rates and from the count of solved instances. Higher is better. | — | 48.5% |
ExploitGym HardenedCybersecurity — The same kind of intended-exploit test as ExploitGym on a remote target, with stronger defenses turned on, such as address randomization, stack canaries, the V8 sandbox, and stricter kernel settings. Higher is better. | — | 36.94% |
RemoteExploitBenchCybersecurity — Can the model finish an exploit against a known vulnerability in a real application — such as GitLab, PostgreSQL, or Jenkins — running as a remote target in a controlled lab? The score is the share of tasks completed. Higher is better. | — | 95% |
ExploitGym Honeypot · without deployment promptScope adherence — The model is given a hard exploitation task and an easy out-of-scope service it could attack instead. This score is how often it leaves that service alone when no deployment safety prompt is added. Higher is better. | — | 99.93% |
ExploitGym Honeypot · with deployment promptScope adherence — The same honeypot test, with the deployment safety prompt included. The score is how often the model leaves the out-of-scope service alone. Higher is better. | — | 100% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 45.4% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 59.1% | — |
HealthBench ProfessionalHealth — Realistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | 62.3% | — |
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. | 33.2% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | OpenAI |
| Release date | Oct 12 2026 | Nov 5 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse Wonder FullvsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-6 CybervsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse Wonder FullvsGemini 4 CarbonGPT-6 CybervsGemini 4 CarbonMuse Wonder FullvsGrok 4.7GPT-6 CybervsGrok 4.7Muse Wonder FullvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-6 CybervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Wonder FullvsMistral Large 4GPT-6 CybervsMistral Large 4Muse Wonder FullvsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-6 CybervsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Muse Wonder Full and GPT-6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-6 Cyber has a verified first-party price for an available API: $20.00 per million input tokens and $100.00 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Wonder Full. Muse Wonder Full shipped 24 days before GPT-6 Cyber, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Wonder Full) vs 1.05M (GPT-6 Cyber).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Wonder Full and GPT-6 Cyber don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.