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 | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.30 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $2.50 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.03 | — |
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. | $0.15Google | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.25Google | — |
| $185Google list price | — | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 54.2% | 51.78% |
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. | 54% | 66.7% |
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. | 66% | — |
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. | — | 71.1% |
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% |
BU BenchBrowser agent — Can the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | 49% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 78% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 89.52% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 70.86% |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 74% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1140 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | |
| Release date | Jul 21 2026 | Oct 15 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsMuse Spark OpenNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsMuse Spark OpenGemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL are evenly matched across the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1). Only Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has a verified first-party API price: $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Nemotron 3.5 Super VL. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite shipped 86 days before Nemotron 3.5 Super VL, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is closed, while Nemotron 3.5 Super VL is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads at 54.2% vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL at 51.78%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL leads at 66.7% vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite at 54%.