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. | 1T | — |
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. | 256k | — |
| 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. | $0.95 | — |
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. | $4.00 | — |
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. | $0.16 | — |
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. | $0.465Inceptron | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $2.40DigitalOcean | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 52% | 81% |
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. | 65% | — |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 54% |
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. | 80.2% | — |
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. | — | 79.8% |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | — | 27.7% |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic 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. Higher is better. | — | 18% |
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. | 89.6% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 73% |
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. | — | 69.3% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 83.2% | — |
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. | 34.7% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 90.5% | — |
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. | 73.1% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1071 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Moonshot AI | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Apr 21 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Kimi K2.6vsClaude Haiku 5.5Composer 2.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5Kimi K2.6vsGPT-6.1 SolComposer 2.5vsGPT-6.1 SolKimi K2.6vsGemini 4 ArgonComposer 2.5vsGemini 4 ArgonKimi K2.6vsMuse Spark 1.3Composer 2.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Kimi K2.6vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashComposer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashKimi K2.6vsMistral Large 4Composer 2.5vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 leads Kimi K2.6 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Next.js Evals). Only Kimi K2.6 has a verified first-party API price: $0.95 per million input tokens and $4.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Composer 2.5. Kimi K2.6 shipped 27 days before Composer 2.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Kimi K2.6 is open weight, while Composer 2.5 is closed.
On Next.js Evals, Composer 2.5 leads at 81% vs Kimi K2.6 at 52%.