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. | — | $2.50 |
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. | — | $7.50 |
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. | — | $1.475Alibaba |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $4.425Alibaba |
| — | $516Alibaba | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 60.6% |
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% | 80.4% |
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% | 91.6% |
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% | 92.4% |
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. | — | 72% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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. | — | 69.7% |
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. | — | 76.4% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 78% | — |
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. | — | 41.4% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | 70.86% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | Qwen |
| Release date | Oct 15 2026 | May 20 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3.7-MaxvsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.7-MaxvsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.7-MaxvsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsMuse Spark OpenQwen3.7-MaxvsMuse Spark OpenNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGrok 4.7Qwen3.7-MaxvsGrok 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.7-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFrequently asked questions
Qwen3.7-Max leads Nemotron 3.5 Super VL on 4 of the 4 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified, LiveCodeBench, GPQA Diamond). Only Qwen3.7-Max has a verified first-party API price: $2.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Nemotron 3.5 Super VL. Qwen3.7-Max shipped 148 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 Qwen3.7-Max is closed.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 60.6% vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL at 51.78%. On SWE-Bench Verified, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 80.4% vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL at 71.1%. On LiveCodeBench, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 91.6% vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL at 88.22%. On GPQA Diamond, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 92.4% vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL at 89.52%.