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. | 1.05T | 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 |
| 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. | $0.70 | — |
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. | $2.10 | — |
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. | $0.07 | — |
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. | $0.70Mistral | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $2.10Mistral | — |
| $245Mistral list price | — | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 80% | — |
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. | 61.7% | — |
SWEAtlas CodeBase QnACodebase understanding — Questions about how an unfamiliar codebase actually works — where something is handled, what a change would touch — answered by reading the repository rather than editing it. Tests understanding rather than patch-writing. Higher is better. | 59.4% | — |
AA Coding Agent IndexAgentic coding — Artificial Analysis' overall score for coding agents, combining three coding benchmarks with what each run costs and how many tokens it burns. It rates a model paired with a particular agent harness rather than the model alone, so the same model scores differently in different tools. Higher is better. | 48 | — |
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. | 41% | — |
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% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 84.5% | — |
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. | 59.9% | — |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | 1393 | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | 1026 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Oct 6 2026 | Oct 16 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Large 4vsClaude Fable 5.2Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsClaude Fable 5.2Mistral Large 4vsGPT-6.1 TerraNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGPT-6.1 TerraMistral Large 4vsGemini 4 CarbonNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGemini 4 CarbonMistral Large 4vsMuse EmberNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMuse EmberMistral Large 4vsGrok 4.7Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGrok 4.7Mistral Large 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Frequently asked questions
Mistral Large 4 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. Only Mistral Large 4 has a verified first-party price for an available API: $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.10 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B. Mistral Large 4 shipped 10 days before Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Mistral Large 4 has 1.05T parameters, while Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B has 4B. Context windows are 1M (Mistral Large 4) vs 256k (Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Mistral Large 4 and Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.