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 | 1M |
| 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% | — |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 57.1% | — |
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% | — |
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 | Qwen |
| Release date | Oct 12 2026 | Nov 11 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse Wonder FullvsClaude Fable 5.2Qwen4-Max PreviewvsClaude Fable 5.2Muse Wonder FullvsGPT-6.1 TerraQwen4-Max PreviewvsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse Wonder FullvsGemini 4 CarbonQwen4-Max PreviewvsGemini 4 CarbonMuse Wonder FullvsGrok 4.7Qwen4-Max PreviewvsGrok 4.7Muse Wonder FullvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen4-Max PreviewvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Wonder FullvsMistral Large 4Qwen4-Max PreviewvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Muse Wonder Full and Qwen4-Max Preview don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Muse Wonder Full shipped 30 days before Qwen4-Max Preview, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Wonder Full) vs 1M (Qwen4-Max Preview).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Wonder Full and Qwen4-Max Preview don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.