Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | 671B | 4B |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 128k | 256k |
| 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. | $0.25DeepInfra | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.95DeepInfra | — |
| $97.50DeepInfra · fp4 | — | |
| 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. | 66% | 59.5% |
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. | 74.8% | — |
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. | — | 18.1% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 15.9% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 72.41% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 77.94% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Aug 21 2025 | Oct 16 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek V3.1vsClaude Fable 5.2Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V3.1vsGPT-6.1 TerraNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGPT-6.1 TerraDeepSeek V3.1vsGemini 4 CarbonNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGemini 4 CarbonDeepSeek V3.1vsMuse EmberNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMuse EmberDeepSeek V3.1vsGrok 4.7Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGrok 4.7DeepSeek V3.1vsMistral Large 4Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek V3.1 leads Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (SWE-Bench Verified). DeepSeek V3.1 shipped 421 days before Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
DeepSeek V3.1 has 671B parameters, while Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B has 4B. Context windows are 128k (DeepSeek V3.1) vs 256k (Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B).
On SWE-Bench Verified, DeepSeek V3.1 leads at 66% vs Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B at 59.5%.