Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | 4B | — |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 256k | 200k |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 59.5% | 49.3% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 72.41% | 77.2% |
HumanEvalFunction synthesis — 164 small Python problems: the AI is given a function's description and has to write the working function. This was the coding benchmark of the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 era, before the field moved to fixing real bugs in real repositories. Higher is better. | — | 97.6% |
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. | 18.1% | — |
MATH-500Reasoning — accuracy on the 500-problem MATH subset | — | 97.9% |
DROPReasoning — three-shot token F1 on questions requiring reasoning over paragraphs | — | 80.6 |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | 77.94% | — |
SimpleQAKnowledge — accuracy on short, fact-seeking questions in the original SimpleQA set | — | 13.8% |
MMLUGeneral knowledge — A 57-subject multiple-choice exam — history, law, medicine, maths — that was the standard measure of how much a model knows from 2020 until roughly 2024, when frontier scores crowded into the high 80s and labs moved on to harder tests. The scores here were published years apart under different testing setups, so read them as a historical record rather than a like-for-like ranking. Higher is better. | — | 86.9% |
MGSMMultilingual math — solving grade-school word problems translated into multiple languages | — | 92% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | OpenAI |
| Release date | Oct 16 2026 | Jan 31 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsClaude Fable 5.2o3-mini-highvsClaude Fable 5.2Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGemini 4 Carbono3-mini-highvsGemini 4 CarbonNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMuse Embero3-mini-highvsMuse EmberNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGrok 4.7o3-mini-highvsGrok 4.7Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017o3-mini-highvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMistral Large 4o3-mini-highvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B and o3-mini-high are evenly matched across the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond). o3-mini-high shipped 623 days before Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 256k (Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B) vs 200k (o3-mini-high). Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B is open weight, while o3-mini-high is closed.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B leads at 59.5% vs o3-mini-high at 49.3%. On GPQA Diamond, o3-mini-high leads at 77.2% vs Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B at 72.41%.