
Real head-to-head · same prompt, one shot
Fugu Ultra vs Fugu Ultra 1.1
Sakana's multi-agent answer to Fusion — frontier ensemble without single-vendor risk. vs Sakana's multi-agent orchestrator, v1.1 — routes experts per request.
What I tested — same prompt, two models
I run the same fixed prompt set through every new model the day it drops — same string, one shot, single HTML file out — and I score the result 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. Below is what came out when I gave the exact same prompts to Fugu Ultra and Fugu Ultra 1.1, side by side, on 0 shared tasks inside the Agent Operating System.
Both models were given identical prompts inside the Agent Operating System — no help, no iteration, no "best of N" tricks. I run each prompt once, save the HTML file the model produces, and score it 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The scoring is mine. The verdicts below are pulled from my source comparison guides at agentos.guide where I publish every score and the reasoning behind it.
Fugu Ultra · Dispatched from Agent OS as the panel-ensemble alternative to OpenRouter Fusion. Bench scored by Claude judge against the same 42 prompts as every other model.
Fugu Ultra 1.1 · Benched on GoldieBench via Sakana's Responses API (fugu-ultra-v1.1, xhigh reasoning). Game tasks use the skill-infused threejs-game-director prompt plus a controls+graphics fix loop with an anti-regression clamp, judged on a real mid-play frame by the same Opus judge as the field.
Side-by-side on 42 shared tasks
Click any cell to play that model's actual one-shot attempt. Medals are derived from my 0–10 scores per task (highest = 🥇, second = 🥈, third = 🥉).
Task ↓
Fugu Ultra
Fugu Ultra 1.1
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Game
— not attempted —
Page
— not attempted —
Page
— not attempted —
Sim
— not attempted —
Sim
— not attempted —
Sim
— not attempted —
Strengths & weaknesses I logged
Fugu Ultra
Strengths
- SWE Bench Pro 73.7 · GPQA-D 95.5 · MRCRv2 93.6 — Sakana's published frontier-tier benchmark scores
- Vendor-agnostic ensemble — opt out of specific providers for compliance / export-control
- OpenAI-compatible API at api.sakana.ai — drop-in for existing tooling
Trade-offs
- Panel orchestration adds latency — even a 'pong' burns ~2k orchestration tokens
- Newer than Fusion; less community calibration on long-tail prompts
Fugu Ultra 1.1
Strengths
- Orchestrates 1-3 expert agents per request and synthesises their answers
- Reported SWE-Bench Pro 73.7 — above Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on Sakana's table
- OpenAI- and Anthropic-compatible API — drop-in for Codex and Claude Code
Trade-offs
- Benched as a partial run until the full 50-task batch completes
- Region-locked: unavailable across the EU/EEA/UK/CH — access depends on where you are
Pricing & context — the spec sheet
| Spec | Fugu Ultra | Fugu Ultra 1.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Sakana AI | Sakana AI |
| Context window | 272,000 tokens with the standard rate. Calls exceeding 272K context are billed at the higher 'long-context' rates. | 1,000,000-token context window |
| Price | $5 / 1M input · $30 / 1M output (Fugu Ultra) | API · orchestration billed |
| Pricing detail | Sakana's multi-agent orchestration: a single API call internally dispatches to multiple frontier models and synthesises the answer. Subscription plans run $20-$200/mo (Standard / Pro / Max); PAYG is $5/M input + $30/M output for Fugu Ultra. Direct competitor to OpenRouter Fusion's panel approach. | Sakana's Fugu Ultra v1.1 — a multi-agent system served as a model: an orchestrator routes each request across one to three expert agents and synthesises the answer. Reported (v1.0): SWE-Bench Pro 73.7, LiveCodeBench 93.2, GPQA Diamond 95.5. NOTE: Sakana geo-blocks the EU/EEA/UK/Switzerland pending GDPR compliance — benched from an allowed region. |
| Release | 2026-06-15 | 2026-07 |
| Bench coverage | 42/42 scored · avg 7.94/10 | 0/0 scored · avg — |
The verdict — which should you pick?
Not enough scored shared tasks yet for a head-to-head average. The live demos for both are on the matrix above — play them and form your own opinion.
If you only run one of these inside your stack, the head-to-head average above is the call. If you can run both, my honest play is to wire Fugu Ultra and Fugu Ultra 1.1 both into the Agent Operating System and dispatch each from the kanban by task type — teams that want fusion-class quality but need a different vendor risk profile → Fugu Ultra, hard, high-stakes coding and reasoning where answer quality beats latency → Fugu Ultra 1.1. That's the same setup I run for the 4,000+ founders inside the AI Profit Boardroom.
FAQ — Fugu Ultra vs Fugu Ultra 1.1
Which is better, Fugu Ultra or Fugu Ultra 1.1?
On Goldie Bench, Fugu Ultra averages no scored verdicts yet across the shared tasks, with 5 gold, 2 silver, 3 bronze overall. Fugu Ultra 1.1 averages no scored verdicts yet, with 0 gold, 0 silver, 0 bronze. Not enough scored shared tasks yet to call a winner.
How much does Fugu Ultra cost vs Fugu Ultra 1.1?
Fugu Ultra: Sakana's multi-agent orchestration: a single API call internally dispatches to multiple frontier models and synthesises the answer. Subscription plans run $20-$200/mo (Standard / Pro / Max); PAYG is $5/M input + $30/M output for Fugu Ultra. Direct competitor to OpenRouter Fusion's panel approach. Fugu Ultra 1.1: Sakana's Fugu Ultra v1.1 — a multi-agent system served as a model: an orchestrator routes each request across one to three expert agents and synthesises the answer. Reported (v1.0): SWE-Bench Pro 73.7, LiveCodeBench 93.2, GPQA Diamond 95.5. NOTE: Sakana geo-blocks the EU/EEA/UK/Switzerland pending GDPR compliance — benched from an allowed region.
What's the context window for Fugu Ultra vs Fugu Ultra 1.1?
Fugu Ultra has a 272,000 tokens with the standard rate. Calls exceeding 272K context are billed at the higher 'long-context' rates. context window. Fugu Ultra 1.1 has a 1,000,000-token context window context window.
When should I pick Fugu Ultra over Fugu Ultra 1.1?
Pick Fugu Ultra for: Teams that want Fusion-class quality but need a different vendor risk profile; Operators avoiding export-controlled providers (Sakana emphasises this in their pitch); Deep-research workflows where ensemble verdicts beat single-model answers. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Panel orchestration adds latency — even a 'pong' burns ~2k orchestration tokens; Newer than Fusion; less community calibration on long-tail prompts.
When should I pick Fugu Ultra 1.1 over Fugu Ultra?
Pick Fugu Ultra 1.1 for: Hard, high-stakes coding and reasoning where answer quality beats latency; Agentic workflows in Codex / Claude Code via the drop-in provider config; One-shot builds you want a panel of experts on, not a single model. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Benched as a partial run until the full 50-task batch completes; Region-locked: unavailable across the EU/EEA/UK/CH — access depends on where you are.
How does Goldie Bench score Fugu Ultra vs Fugu Ultra 1.1?
Every demo on this page was built by Julian Goldie inside the Agent Operating System — same fixed prompt for both models, one shot, single HTML file out. Each result gets a 0–10 score on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The highest score on each task gets gold; second gets silver; third gets bronze. See methodology for full provenance.
Related comparisons
Other head-to-heads using the same scoring system:
Fugu Ultra vs Fusion Fugu Ultra 1.1 vs Fusion Fugu Ultra vs Hermes MoA Fugu Ultra 1.1 vs Hermes MoA Fugu Ultra vs GPT-5.6 Sol Fugu Ultra 1.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol Fugu Ultra vs Claude Fable 5 Fugu Ultra 1.1 vs Claude Fable 5Full model pages: Fugu Ultra · Fugu Ultra 1.1 · back to the leaderboard
The same stack Julian uses
Run this stack yourself.
Every demo on this bench was built inside the Agent Operating System — one prompt, one shot, single HTML file out. The Agent OS, the prompts, the templates, the weekly walkthroughs and 4,000+ founders shipping with it every day all live inside the AI Profit Boardroom.
4,000+founders
258documented wins
38countries
$59/momonthly






















