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. | — | 32B |
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 | 32k |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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% | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 50% |
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 28 2024 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse Wonder FullvsClaude Haiku 5.5QwQ-32B-PreviewvsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse Wonder FullvsGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B-PreviewvsGPT-6.1 SolMuse Wonder FullvsGemini 4 ArgonQwQ-32B-PreviewvsGemini 4 ArgonMuse Wonder FullvsGrok 4.7QwQ-32B-PreviewvsGrok 4.7Muse Wonder FullvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017QwQ-32B-PreviewvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Wonder FullvsMistral Large 4QwQ-32B-PreviewvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Muse Wonder Full and QwQ-32B-Preview don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. QwQ-32B-Preview shipped 683 days before Muse Wonder Full, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Wonder Full) vs 32k (QwQ-32B-Preview). Muse Wonder Full is closed, while QwQ-32B-Preview is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Wonder Full and QwQ-32B-Preview don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.