Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 397B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 1M |
| 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. | — | $0.60 |
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. | — | $3.60 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.065Alibaba |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.13Darkbloom |
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. | — | 78% |
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. | — | 76.4% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
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. | 78.8% | — |
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. | 53.1% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 52.5% |
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. | 70.5% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 69% |
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. | — | 28.7% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 88.4% |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 62.2% |
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. | 39.1% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 56.6% | — |
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. | 60.5% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 80.8% |
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. | 30.8% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 85% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Qwen |
| Release date | Oct 12 2026 | Feb 16 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse WondervsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5Muse WondervsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.5vsGPT-6.1 SolMuse WondervsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.5vsGemini 4 ArgonMuse WondervsGrok 4.7Qwen3.5vsGrok 4.7Muse WondervsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse WondervsMistral Large 4Qwen3.5vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Muse Wonder and Qwen3.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Qwen3.5 has a verified first-party API price: $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Wonder. Qwen3.5 shipped 238 days before Muse Wonder, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Wonder) vs 1M (Qwen3.5). Muse Wonder is closed, while Qwen3.5 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Wonder and Qwen3.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.