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 | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 73.7% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 58% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 61.7% |
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 | NVIDIA | SpaceXSI |
| Release date | Oct 15 2026 | Mar 19 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsClaude Haiku 5.5Composer 2vsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGPT-6.1 SolComposer 2vsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGemini 4 ArgonComposer 2vsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsMuse Spark OpenComposer 2vsMuse Spark OpenNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashComposer 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsMistral Large 4Composer 2vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Composer 2 leads Nemotron 3.5 Super VL on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (SWE-Bench Multilingual). Composer 2 shipped 210 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 Composer 2 is closed.
On SWE-Bench Multilingual, Composer 2 leads at 73.7% vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL at 67.72%.