Agentic
Not comparable- Fugu Cyber
- Not ranked
- ZAYA1-8B
- 48.1
- Estimated · #79/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Fugu Cyber vs ZAYA1-8B
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Fugu Cyber
Fugu Cyber has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Fugu Cyber and ZAYA1-8B are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Fugu Cyber is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. ZAYA1-8B does not fit this workload in one request. ZAYA1-8B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Fugu Cyber only
11 ZAYA1-8B only
- Shared results
- 0
- Fugu Cyber only
- 2
- ZAYA1-8B only
- 11
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Not comparable- Fugu Cyber
- Not ranked
- ZAYA1-8B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Fugu Cyber
- Not ranked
- ZAYA1-8B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Fugu Cyber
- Not ranked
- ZAYA1-8B
- 45.3
- Estimated · #116/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Fugu Cyber
- Not ranked
- ZAYA1-8B
- 62.6
- Unranked · 4 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Fugu Cyber
- Not ranked
- ZAYA1-8B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Fugu Cyber
- Not ranked
- ZAYA1-8B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Fugu Cyber
- Not ranked
- ZAYA1-8B
- 35.6
- #108/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Fugu Cyber | ZAYA1-8B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 48.1Estimated · #79/151 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 45.3Estimated · #116/181 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 62.6Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 35.6#108/120 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Fugu Cyber
- $0.024
- Fits in one request
- ZAYA1-8B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
ZAYA1-8B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Fugu Cyber
- $0.408
- Fits in one request
- ZAYA1-8B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
ZAYA1-8B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Fugu Cyber
- $0.6
- Fits in one request
- ZAYA1-8B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
ZAYA1-8B does not fit this workload in one request. ZAYA1-8B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationFugu CyberZAYA1-8B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Fugu Cyber
1M
ZAYA1-8B
131K
API model ID
Fugu Cyber
Not sourced
ZAYA1-8B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Fugu Cyber
$0.6 per 1M cached input tokens
ZAYA1-8B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Fugu Cyber
Not sourced
ZAYA1-8B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Fugu Cyber
Not sourced
ZAYA1-8B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Fugu Cyber
Not sourced
ZAYA1-8B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Fugu Cyber
Reasoning
ZAYA1-8B
Reasoning
Weight access
Fugu Cyber
Proprietary
ZAYA1-8B
Open Weight
License
Fugu Cyber
Proprietary
ZAYA1-8B
Open Weight
Release date
Fugu Cyber
2026-07-21
ZAYA1-8B
2026-05-05
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Fugu Cyber has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence13 rows
Agentic
Coding
LiveCodeBench v6
Fugu Cyber—ZAYA1-8B65.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Fugu Cyber or ZAYA1-8B?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Fugu Cyber or ZAYA1-8B?
Fugu Cyber and ZAYA1-8B are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Fugu Cyber or ZAYA1-8B?
Fugu Cyber is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Fugu Cyber or ZAYA1-8B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Fugu Cyber or ZAYA1-8B?
Fugu Cyber has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 131K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Fugu Cyber vs ZAYA1-8B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.