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 | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 69.3% |
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. | — | 64.9% |
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. | — | 70% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | — | 26.97% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 29% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 64% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 76.1% |
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. | — | 73.3% |
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% | — |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | 77.94% | — |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | — | 50.8% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 82.7% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | NVIDIA | Qwen |
| Release date | Oct 16 2026 | Sep 2 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsClaude Fable 5.2Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsClaude Fable 5.2Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGPT-6.1 TerraQwen3.8-Max-0902vsGPT-6.1 TerraNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGemini 4 CarbonQwen3.8-Max-0902vsGemini 4 CarbonNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsMuse EmberQwen3.8-Max-0902vsMuse EmberNemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsGrok 4.7Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsGrok 4.7Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Frequently asked questions
Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B and Qwen3.8-Max-0902 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Qwen3.8-Max-0902 shipped 44 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-0902 has 2.4T. Context windows are 256k (Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B) vs 1M (Qwen3.8-Max-0902). Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B is open weight, while Qwen3.8-Max-0902 is closed.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Nemotron Labs Dory 1.0 4B and Qwen3.8-Max-0902 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.