Ember-1 vs Sonar
Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- 52.6
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $15.00
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- 7.7
- Output $/M
- $1.00
Decision reading
Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Sonar has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Sonar has the edge where output tokens cost 15.0x less.
- Shared results
- 0
- Ember-1 only
- 14
- Sonar only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Ember-1 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Sonar has a AA Intelligence Index result, 7.7.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Ember-1
Ember-1 takes 1.05M tokens against 127K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Sonar
Ember-1 $0.011, Sonar $0.0015 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ember-1 52.6 from 2 benchmarks, Sonar not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- No category has a result for both models.
- Widest single gap
- No benchmark has a result for both models.
- Output price
- Ember-1 $15.00 against Sonar $1.00 per million output tokens, 15.0x apart.
- Context window
- Ember-1 takes 1.05M tokens, Sonar 127K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Sonar | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 20.7% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 83.9% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 32.5% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 46.3% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 69.5% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 29.5% | Only Sonar measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Sonar | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 7.7 | Only Sonar measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Sonar | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 51.8% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 31.1% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 44.7% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 63.4% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | 67.0% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 5.7% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Vals Science Index | 31.8% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Sonar | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | 22.5% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 47.1% | Only Sonar measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 4.9% | Only Sonar measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Sonar | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Sonar | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 68.9% | Only Sonar measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Sonar | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Sonar | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 66.2% | Not measured | Only Ember-1 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 45 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ember-1 | Sonar | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Sonar costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Sonar costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Sonar costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Fireworks Ember-1 | Perplexity Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Fireworks | Perplexity |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | September 24, 2026 | January 27, 2025 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 127K |
| Input $/Mtok | $3.00 | $1.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $15.00 | $1.00 |
| Coding index | 52.6 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Ember-1 better than Sonar for coding?
Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Sonar has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Sonar has the edge where output tokens cost 15.0x less.
Which is cheaper, Ember-1 or Sonar?
Ember-1 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Sonar costs $1.00 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ember-1 or Sonar?
Ember-1, with 1.05M tokens against 127K.
How many benchmarks is the Ember-1 vs Sonar comparison based on?
0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Ember-1's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Sonar's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.