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. | — | 117B |
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. | — | $0.03AkashML |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.15Near AI |
| — | $13.50Venice · int4 | |
| 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. | — | 12% |
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. | — | 62.4% |
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. | 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% | — |
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. | — | 14.9% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 19% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 80.1% |
MMLUGeneral knowledge — A 57-subject multiple-choice exam — history, law, medicine, maths — that was the standard measure of how much a model knows from 2020 until roughly 2024, when frontier scores crowded into the high 80s and labs moved on to harder tests. The scores here were published years apart under different testing setups, so read them as a historical record rather than a like-for-like ranking. Higher is better. | — | 90% |
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 | Aug 5 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse Wonder FullvsClaude Haiku 5.5gpt-oss-120bvsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse Wonder FullvsGemini 4 Argongpt-oss-120bvsGemini 4 ArgonMuse Wonder FullvsGrok 4.7gpt-oss-120bvsGrok 4.7Muse Wonder FullvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017gpt-oss-120bvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Wonder FullvsMistral Large 4gpt-oss-120bvsMistral Large 4Muse Wonder FullvsKimi K3gpt-oss-120bvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Muse Wonder Full and gpt-oss-120b don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. gpt-oss-120b shipped 433 days before Muse Wonder Full, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Wonder Full) vs 128k (gpt-oss-120b). Muse Wonder Full is closed, while gpt-oss-120b is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Wonder Full and gpt-oss-120b don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.