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. | — | 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. | 1M | 256k |
| 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. | 12.5% | 59.5% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 51.5% | 72.41% |
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. | 28.9% | — |
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% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 77.94% |
SimpleQAKnowledge — accuracy on short, fact-seeking questions in the original SimpleQA set | 21.7% | — |
MMLU-ProKnowledge — accuracy on the ten-option MMLU-Pro benchmark | 71.6% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | |
| Release date | Feb 5 2025 | Oct 16 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsClaude Fable 5.2Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsGPT-6.1 TerraNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsMuse EmberNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMuse EmberGemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 2.0 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B leads Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond). Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite shipped 618 days before Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite) vs 256k (Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B). Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is closed, while Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B leads at 59.5% vs Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite at 12.5%. On GPQA Diamond, Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B leads at 72.41% vs Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite at 51.5%.