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. | 74B | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 50.98% | 73% |
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% |
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. | — | 79.8% |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | — | 27.7% |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic 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. Higher is better. | — | 18% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 81% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
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. | 52.2% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 66.75% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 86.43% | — |
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. | — | 1091 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | SpaceXSI |
| Release date | Oct 15 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74BvsClaude Haiku 5.5Composer 2.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74BvsGPT-6.1 SolComposer 2.5vsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron 3.5 Bolt 74BvsGemini 4 ArgonComposer 2.5vsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron 3.5 Bolt 74BvsMuse Spark OpenComposer 2.5vsMuse Spark OpenNemotron 3.5 Bolt 74BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashComposer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashNemotron 3.5 Bolt 74BvsMistral Large 4Composer 2.5vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 leads Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench 2.1). Composer 2.5 shipped 150 days before Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B is open weight, while Composer 2.5 is closed.
On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Composer 2.5 leads at 73% vs Nemotron 3.5 Bolt 74B at 50.98%.