Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 120B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $15.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $75.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
| $6,750Amazon Bedrock | — | |
| Benchmarks | ||
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 74.5% | 71.1% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 80.9% | 89.52% |
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 43% | — |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 51.78% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 67.72% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 88.22% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 66.7% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 78% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 70.86% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Aug 5 2025 | Oct 15 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 4.1vsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Opus 4.1vsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGemini 4 ArgonClaude Opus 4.1vsMuse Spark OpenNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsMuse Spark OpenClaude Opus 4.1vsGrok 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGrok 4.7Claude Opus 4.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Opus 4.1vsMistral Large 4Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4.1 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL are evenly matched across the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond). Claude Opus 4.1 shipped 436 days before Nemotron 3.5 Super VL, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Claude Opus 4.1 is closed, while Nemotron 3.5 Super VL is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Claude Opus 4.1 leads at 74.5% vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL at 71.1%. On GPQA Diamond, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL leads at 89.52% vs Claude Opus 4.1 at 80.9%.