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 |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
ProgramBenchProgram reconstruction — The AI receives a working program and its documentation, then builds a replacement from scratch without the original source code, internet access or decompilation. The score is the percentage of 200 programs that pass every behavioral test. We record each model's best published mini-SWE-agent result, including higher reasoning efforts where available. Partial test-pass rates and almost-solved programs do not count toward this score. Equal scores share a rank here; the official board also uses partial progress to break ties. Higher is better. | 8.5% | — |
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. | — | 59.5% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 79% | — |
SWE-Marathon v1.1Multi-hour coding — Twenty multi-hour programming jobs — rebuilding a library, cloning a product, training a model, making something faster. A run counts only when every check passes, hidden tests and interface review included. Higher is better. | 57.5% | — |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 57.1% | — |
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% |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | 75.3% | — |
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% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 45.4% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 59.1% | — |
HealthBench ProfessionalHealth — Realistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | 62.3% | — |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | 33.2% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Oct 12 2026 | Oct 16 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Muse Wonder FullvsClaude Fable 5.2Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsClaude Fable 5.2Muse Wonder FullvsGPT-6.1 TerraNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGPT-6.1 TerraMuse Wonder FullvsGemini 4 CarbonNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGemini 4 CarbonMuse Wonder FullvsGrok 4.7Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGrok 4.7Muse Wonder FullvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Muse Wonder FullvsMistral Large 4Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Muse Wonder Full and Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Muse Wonder Full shipped 4 days before Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Muse Wonder Full) vs 256k (Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B). Muse Wonder Full is closed, while Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Muse Wonder Full and Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.