Pareto vs Fugu Max
Fugu Max comes out ahead, 46 to 33 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Fugu Max is our pick
Fugu Max is the better all-round choice, scoring 46/100 against Pareto (33). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. 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 priceFugu MaxFugu Max $3.00 · Pareto $3.86 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextFugu MaxFugu Max 1,000,000 · Pareto 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsFugu MaxPareto: Text, Images · Fugu Max: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Pareto | Fugu Max |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 21 | 26 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 50 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 33/100 | 46/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | ParetoUnbiased |  Fugu MaxSakana AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $2.57 | $2.00 (best) |
| Output | $7.72 | $6.00 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.86 | $3.00 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Median of 9 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 2 | 9 (best) |
| Released | Sep 17, 2026 | Sep 11, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Pareto$41.16
- Fugu Max$32.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Pareto or Fugu Max?
Fugu Max is the better all-round choice, scoring 46/100 against Pareto (33). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Pareto or Fugu Max?
Fugu Max is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 9 API providers). Pareto costs $2.57 input / $7.72 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.00 per million tokens for Fugu Max versus $3.86 for Pareto (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Pareto has not been scored yet and Fugu Max has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Pareto and Fugu Max yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Fugu Max has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Pareto. Maximum output per response: Pareto up to 131,072, Fugu Max up to 128,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Pareto accepts text and images; Fugu Max accepts text, images and PDFs. Fugu Max handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Pareto and Fugu Max are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Pareto is the newest, released Sep 17, 2026. Fugu Max came out Sep 11, 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.
