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 | 2.4T |
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 | 1M |
| 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. | — | $2.00Alibaba |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $6.00Alibaba |
| — | $700Alibaba | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 86.6% |
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. | — | 95% |
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. | — | 67.7% |
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% | — |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 56.6% |
PaperBenchResearch reproduction — reproducing the results of an ML research paper end to end | — | 93% |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 55.9% |
QwenSWEBench V2Software engineering — Qwen's in-house coding benchmark, second version, built around complex real-world software-engineering tasks. Scores are not comparable with the first version. Higher is better. | — | 55.1% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 11.3% |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 53.4% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 74.8% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 72.5% |
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. | — | 43.6% |
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% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 86.1% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 88.4% |
BabyVisionVisual reasoning — Tests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 82% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 82.3% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | Qwen |
| Release date | Oct 16 2026 | Aug 3 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3.8-MaxvsClaude Fable 5.2Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGPT-6.1 TerraQwen3.8-MaxvsGPT-6.1 TerraNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGemini 4 CarbonQwen3.8-MaxvsGemini 4 CarbonNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMuse EmberQwen3.8-MaxvsMuse EmberNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGrok 4.7Qwen3.8-MaxvsGrok 4.7Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3.8-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.8-Max leads Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench 2.1). Qwen3.8-Max shipped 74 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 Qwen3.8-Max has 2.4T. Context windows are 256k (Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B) vs 1M (Qwen3.8-Max). Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B is open weight, while Qwen3.8-Max is closed.
On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 86.6% vs Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B at 18.1%.