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. | 80B | — |
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. | 256k | — |
| 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. | $0.12Parasail | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.80Parasail | — |
| $64.00Parasail · bf16 | — | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 62.8% | 73.7% |
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. | 36.2% | 61.7% |
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. | 44.3% | — |
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. | 70.6% | — |
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. | — | 57% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | SpaceXSI |
| Release date | Feb 3 2026 | Mar 19 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Qwen3-Coder-NextvsClaude Fable 5.2Composer 2vsClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3-Coder-NextvsGPT-6.1 TerraComposer 2vsGPT-6.1 TerraQwen3-Coder-NextvsGemini 4 HydrogenComposer 2vsGemini 4 HydrogenQwen3-Coder-NextvsMuse EmberComposer 2vsMuse EmberQwen3-Coder-NextvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Composer 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3-Coder-NextvsMistral Large 4Composer 2vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Composer 2 leads Qwen3-Coder-Next on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Multilingual, Terminal-Bench 2.0). Qwen3-Coder-Next shipped 44 days before Composer 2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Qwen3-Coder-Next is open weight, while Composer 2 is closed.
On SWE-Bench Multilingual, Composer 2 leads at 73.7% vs Qwen3-Coder-Next at 62.8%. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, Composer 2 leads at 61.7% vs Qwen3-Coder-Next at 36.2%.