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. | 30B | 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. | $0.30DeepInfra | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.20DeepInfra | — |
| $120DeepInfra · bf16 | — | |
| 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. | 76% | 59.5% |
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. | 51.7% | 18.1% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 83.5% | 72.41% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | 77% | 77.94% |
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. | 51.2% | — |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 75.5% | — |
DeepSearchQAAgentic browsing — Questions that cannot be answered from one page: the AI has to search the web, follow the trail across several sources, and put the pieces together into an answer. Higher is better. | 74.6% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · text only, no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — accuracy on the 2,158 text-only questions without tools | 22% | — |
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. | 65.9% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 953 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 78.8% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | Oct 16 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Fable 5.2Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsClaude Fable 5.2Muse GlimmervsGPT-6.1 TerraNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse GlimmervsGemini 4 CarbonNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGemini 4 CarbonMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.7Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGrok 4.7Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse GlimmervsMistral Large 4Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Muse Glimmer leads Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B on 3 of the 4 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.1, GPQA Diamond, IFBench). Muse Glimmer shipped 67 days before Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer has 30B parameters, while Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B has 4B. Context windows are 128k (Muse Glimmer) vs 256k (Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B).
On SWE-Bench Verified, Muse Glimmer leads at 76% vs Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B at 59.5%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Muse Glimmer leads at 51.7% vs Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B at 18.1%. On GPQA Diamond, Muse Glimmer leads at 83.5% vs Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B at 72.41%. On IFBench, Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B leads at 77.94% vs Muse Glimmer at 77%.