Model decision surface
Compare AI models
Start with Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.5 397B A17B, or choose any two current ranked language models. Compare capability evidence, price, context, provider availability, and weight access without pretending one field decides every use case.
Current public data
Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Live dataset updated 9/9/2026, 9:50:24 PM UTC
Open 1200×630 evidence receipt| Field | Laguna S 2.1 Poolside | |
|---|---|---|
| ModelCap position | #37 | #38 |
| Index score | 64.5 | 64.4 |
| Evidence | Estimated5 reported rows against measured corpus ladders (70%); global-corpus-prior over 180 held-out anchors (30%); shrunk 4.4 toward the measured corpus | Measured3 public benchmark observations across 3 boards |
| Input / 1M | $0.09 | $0.55 |
| Output / 1M | $0.18 | $3.50 |
| Pricing status | fresh | fresh |
| Context | 1M | 262K |
| Providers | 1 | 10 |
| Weight access | Restricted license | Open weights |
Decision facts
- Laguna S 2.1 is #37; Qwen3.5 397B A17B is #38 on the same current language board.
- Index scores are 64.5 for Laguna S 2.1 and 64.4 for Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.
- Evidence differs: Laguna S 2.1 is Estimated; Qwen3.5 397B A17B is Measured.
- Listed output price per 1M tokens is $0.18 for Laguna S 2.1 and $3.50 for Qwen3.5 397B A17B. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $0.27 for Laguna S 2.1 versus $2.85 for Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Laguna S 2.1 costs 90.5% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.
- Published context is 1,048,576 tokens for Laguna S 2.1 and 262,144 for Qwen3.5 397B A17B.
- Weight access differs: Laguna S 2.1 is restricted; Qwen3.5 397B A17B is open.
- ModelCap currently lists 1 providers for Laguna S 2.1 and 10 for Qwen3.5 397B A17B.
These are separate published fields, not a synthetic winner. ModelCap does not collapse price, access, context, and capability evidence into a hidden recommendation score.
Popular comparisons
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-6 Astra#2 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra#3 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3#3 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-6 Astra#4 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Spark 1.3#4 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5#3 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Astra vs Grok 4.6#1 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs Grok 4.6#2 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.6#3 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 4.6#4 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra#6 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#2 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#3 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#4 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs Grok 4.6#6 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Kimi K3 vs GPT-6 Astra#7 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs Kimi K3#2 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3#3 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Kimi K3#4 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Kimi K3 vs Grok 4.6#7 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#7 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Astra#8 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3#8 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#3 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
Each comparison page is a permanent, shareable URL with the same live figures as this tool: ModelCap Index position, API pricing, context window, provider count, weight access and every shared benchmark board.