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 | 0.6B/1.7B/4B/8B/14B/30B/32B/235B |
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 | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
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. | — | $0.08DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.22NextBit |
| — | $30.00DeepInfra · fp8 | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 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. | 59.5% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | 77.94% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | Qwen |
| Release date | Oct 16 2026 | Apr 29 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3vsClaude Fable 5.2Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGPT-6.1 TerraQwen3vsGPT-6.1 TerraNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGemini 4 CarbonQwen3vsGemini 4 CarbonNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMuse EmberQwen3vsMuse EmberNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGrok 4.7Qwen3vsGrok 4.7Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Frequently asked questions
Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B and Qwen3 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Qwen3 shipped 535 days before Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B has 4B parameters, while Qwen3 has 0.6B/1.7B/4B/8B/14B/30B/32B/235B.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B and Qwen3 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.