Fugu Ultra v2 vs Fugu vs Ember-1
Too close to call on our weighted score (Fugu Ultra v2 66, Fugu 66, Ember-1 60). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Sakana AIFugu Ultra v2
66/100- ECI—
- Price$5.00 / $30.00
- Context1M
- Sakana AI
Fugu
66/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context1M
Fireworks AIEmber-1
60/100- ECI—
- Price$3.00 / $15.00
- Context1.05M
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Fugu Ultra v2 66/100, Fugu 66/100, Ember-1 60/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Ember-1 on price and Ember-1 for long inputs. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceEmber-1Ember-1 $6.00 · Fugu Ultra v2 $11.25 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Fugu unpriced
- Longest contextEmber-1Ember-1 1,048,576 · Fugu Ultra v2 1,000,000 · Fugu 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsFugu Ultra v2Fugu Ultra v2: Text, Images, PDFs · Fugu: Text, Images · Ember-1: Text, Images
- Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Fugu Ultra v2 | Fugu | Ember-1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 70 | 70 | 60 |
| Context window | 40% | 60 | 60 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 66/100 | 66/100 | 60/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Fugu Ultra v2Sakana AI | FuguSakana AI | Ember-1Fireworks AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $5.00 | — | $3.00 (best) |
| Output | $30.00 | — | $15.00 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $11.25 | — | $6.00 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 6 providers | — | Median of 7 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | — | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeshigh · xhigh | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | fugu | — |
| API providers | 6 | 1 | 7 (best) |
| Released | Sep 11, 2026 | Jun 15, 2026 | Sep 22, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Aug 28, 2026 | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Fugu Ultra v2$110.00
- Fugu—
- Ember-1$60.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Fugu Ultra v2, Fugu or Ember-1?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Fugu Ultra v2 66/100, Fugu 66/100, Ember-1 60/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Ember-1 on price and Ember-1 for long inputs. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Fugu Ultra v2, Fugu or Ember-1?
Ember-1 is cheaper at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). Fugu Ultra v2 costs $5.00 input / $30.00 output per million tokens (median across 6 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $6.00 per million tokens for Ember-1 versus $11.25 for Fugu Ultra v2 (1.9× as much). Fugu has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Fugu Ultra v2 has not been scored yet, Fugu has not been scored yet and Ember-1 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Fugu Ultra v2, Fugu and Ember-1 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Ember-1 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Fugu Ultra v2 and 1,000,000 for Fugu. Maximum output per response: Fugu Ultra v2 up to 128,000, Ember-1 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Fugu Ultra v2 accepts text, images and PDFs; Fugu accepts text and images; Ember-1 accepts text and images. Fugu Ultra v2 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Fugu Ultra v2, Fugu and Ember-1 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Ember-1 is the newest, released Sep 22, 2026. Fugu Ultra v2 came out Sep 11, 2026; Fugu came out Jun 15, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Fugu Ultra v2 Aug 28, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
