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. | 1M | — |
| 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. | — | $30.00 |
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. | — | $180.00 |
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. | — | $15.00OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $90.00OpenAI |
| — | $15,000OpenAI list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 78% | 90.1% |
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. | — | 36% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 65% |
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% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 57.2% |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | — | 84.2% |
FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | — | 52.4% |
FrontierMath · Tier 4Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | — | 39.6% |
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% | — |
GDPval (win/tie rate)Knowledge work — How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | — | 82.3% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | OpenAI |
| Release date | Oct 15 2026 | Apr 23 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5.5-ProvsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5.5-ProvsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsMuse Spark OpenGPT-5.5-ProvsMuse Spark OpenNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGrok 4.7GPT-5.5-ProvsGrok 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-5.5-ProvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsMistral Large 4GPT-5.5-ProvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.5-Pro leads Nemotron 3.5 Super VL on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BrowseComp). Only GPT-5.5-Pro has a verified first-party API price: $30.00 per million input tokens and $180.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Nemotron 3.5 Super VL. GPT-5.5-Pro shipped 175 days before Nemotron 3.5 Super VL, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL is open weight, while GPT-5.5-Pro is closed.
On BrowseComp, GPT-5.5-Pro leads at 90.1% vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL at 78%.