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. | 128k | 1M |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 51.78% |
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% |
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. | — | 66.7% |
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% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Moonshot AI | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Jan 20 2025 | Oct 15 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Kimi K1.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsClaude Haiku 5.5Kimi K1.5vsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGPT-6.1 SolKimi K1.5vsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGemini 4 ArgonKimi K1.5vsMuse Spark OpenNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsMuse Spark OpenKimi K1.5vsGrok 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGrok 4.7Kimi K1.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFrequently asked questions
Kimi K1.5 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Kimi K1.5 shipped 633 days before Nemotron 3.5 Super VL, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 128k (Kimi K1.5) vs 1M (Nemotron 3.5 Super VL). Kimi K1.5 is closed, while Nemotron 3.5 Super VL is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Kimi K1.5 and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.