On this site
Jev 1.13.0
TypeSafe · System One model
Ranked in the current release, and better calibrated.
71.5JevBench v1.6.1 rank #5 · Capability #5
Jev comparison · JevBench v1.6.1 · updated October 9, 2026
Level with Jev when it was last measured, and more expensive to run.
On this site
TypeSafe · System One model
Ranked in the current release, and better calibrated.
71.5JevBench v1.6.1 rank #5 · Capability #5
vs
Alternative
Maisa · DiffusionGemma decision API
Level with Jev on intelligence when it was last measured, and it can look at a picture.
Not measured in JevBench v1.6.1
One benchmark measured all 173 systems under one method and ranked 135, so these bars are comparable with each other in a way that vendor-published figures are not. The full board and how to read it are on the JevBench results page.
The top four ranked systems finish within 2.3 points of each other. The composite hides where systems actually differ, so the charts below break it apart. Benchmark Heaven’s headline Capability ranking, shown next to each score above, averages intelligence and calibration among Jev-class systems.
djev was not measured in JevBench v1.6.1, so there is nothing to chart against Jev here. The analysis below uses the figures its authors publish.
One thing these charts leave out: the composite score above also weighs a fourth axis, cost. We do not reproduce it here; the full table is at the source below.
The capability scores are charted above; this is the ranking and the deployment detail behind them. Jev and djev are highlighted.
| Model | Rank | Score | Measured latency | Runs on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sage 1.3.0 (Levanto Labs, hosted API) | #1 | 74.0 | 0.15s median / 0.29s p95 | Hosted API |
| H2O-Lightning-4B v1.1 (H2O.ai, Qwen3.5-4B) | #2 | 72.5 | 0.03s raw, 0.21s adjusted | Self-hosted GPU |
| Mercury Decide (Inception, diffusion decision API) | #3 | 72.4 | 0.33s median / 0.85s p95 | Hosted API |
| decisio v0.8.0 on Gemma 4 31B (Amin Roudaki, frozen base) | #4 | 71.7 | 0.05s raw, 0.24s adjusted | Self-hosted, H100 |
| Jev 1.13.0 (TypeSafe) | #5 | 71.5 | 0.24s median / 0.30s p95 | Hosted API |
| Quyet-1.0-Large (Chinh Nguyen, Gemma 4 31B decoder) | #6 | 71.4 | 0.12s raw, 0.38s adjusted | Self-hosted, H100 |
| decider-12b v2 (Mapika, Gemma 4 12B) | #7 | 70.9 | 0.05s raw, 0.26s adjusted | Self-hosted, RTX PRO 6000 |
| wity-1 (Wity, closed API, reasoning auto) | #8 | 70.8 | 1.57s median / 4.21s p95 | Hosted API |
| decider-12b v1 (Mapika, stock Gemma 4 12B) | #9 | 70.4 | 0.05s raw, 0.26s adjusted | Self-hosted, RTX PRO 6000 |
| torchcast-decision-12b (Torchcast AI, Gemma 4 12B) | #10 | 69.9 | 0.04s raw, 0.22s adjusted | Self-hosted, H100 |
| Winnow-12B Q8 (EldanRing, Gemma 4 12B) | #11 | 68.9 | 0.12s raw, 0.38s adjusted | Self-hosted, RTX 6000 |
| deck-31B (krishna765, frozen Gemma 4 31B) | #12 | 68.7 | 0.13s raw, 0.40s adjusted | Self-hosted GPU |
| Cygnet (blockbrain, frozen Gemma 4 12B) | #13 | 68.6 | 0.04s raw, 0.22s adjusted | Self-hosted, RTX PRO 6000 |
| decisio v0.8.0 on Gemma 4 12B (Amin Roudaki, frozen base) | #14 | 68.2 | 0.10s raw, 0.35s adjusted | Self-hosted GPU |
| Jev-Omni (akhilaaa3, Gemma 4 12B) | #16 | 67.7 | 0.15s raw, 0.46s adjusted | Self-hosted, RTX 6000 |
| Xor 26B-A4B (Juspay, Gemma 4 26B-A4B) | #17 | 67.4 | 0.06s raw, 0.27s adjusted | Self-hosted GPU |
| Plumb-4B (crh225, JevK5 v0.2 + LoRA) | #30 | 48.3 | 0.02s raw, 0.19s adjusted | Self-hosted, H100 |
| decider-4b v2 (Mapika, Qwen3.5-4B) | #39 | 41.2 | 0.02s raw, 0.20s adjusted | Self-hosted, RTX 5090 |
| JevK5 v0.3 (allebee, Qwen3.5-4B) | #41 | 37.4 | 0.02s raw, 0.19s adjusted | Self-hosted, H100 |
| Hopper (HopitAI, Qwen3.5-4B LoRA) | #52 | 28.9 | 0.06s raw, 0.26s adjusted | Self-hosted, RTX A6000 |
| Imajev-4B (Mohit Garg, Qwen3.5-4B LoRA) | #53 | 28.7 | 0.07s raw, 0.29s adjusted | Self-hosted, RTX 5090 |
| SemIf (Qwen3.5-4B) | #80 | 15.5 | 0.05s raw, 0.25s adjusted | Self-hosted, RTX 5090 |
| Laya (ModernBERT-large) | #127 | 0.0 | 0.83s raw, 1.80s adjusted | Self-hosted, CPU |
JevBench v1.6 is a full re-measure on a new decision pool, not an update of v1.5. Every system answers 1,500 decisions: 300 open decisions from public sources and 1,200 sealed decisions whose text stays private, one request at a time. v1.6.1 put the hosted APIs on that same full set instead of the 600-item subset v1.6.0 gave them, so their accuracy axes are no longer equated onto the self-hosted scale. The official score is a harmonic mean of four equally weighted axes (intelligence, calibration, speed and cost), so one weak axis pulls it down hard; an axis below chance counts as zero, which zeroes the score. The sealed decisions make up half of intelligence, and a system whose open-minus-sealed gap exceeds the field median loses intelligence in proportion. Choice, noul and score requests carry equal weight. v1.6.1 also prices every token-priced system on one common item set — all 1,500 decisions except the 23 that fall outside Jev’s accepted input range — so a system that answered those long items no longer pays for their tokens while one that refused them does not. Refusals still count against intelligence. Benchmark Heaven also leads its page with a Capability ranking: the mean of intelligence and calibration among Jev-class systems, those inside a budget frozen at twice Jev’s v1.5 cost and median latency. v1.6.1 lists 173 systems and ranks 135; the rest were not re-measured, and 13 of them keep a separately dated v1.5.x score. Self-hosted latency is adjusted by x2 plus 0.15s to approximate production load, so it is not comparable with the raw latency authors publish. Scores are not comparable with any v1.5 or v1.4 release.
| Attribute | Jev 1.13.0 | djev |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Hosted System One model from TypeSafe, version jev-1.13.0 | Hosted DiffusionGemma decision API from Maisa, in preview |
| Question types | Noul (yes/no), choice, score — many per call, answered in parallel | Noul, choice, score |
| Inputs | Text only: string, JSON object or array | Text, native images, image options, live camera frames |
| Context | 64k tokens per request (32k for state plus the longest question) | Not published for the hosted preview |
| Calibration | Trained with RLCD; JevBench v1.6.1 calibration 90.6 | Documented by Maisa as experimental and uncalibrated; 80.4 in v1.5.6, its last measurement |
| Open weights | No | Community djev-dev repo is Apache-2.0; Maisa’s hosted service is not yet released |
| Self-hosting | Not available | Possible: roughly one NVIDIA B200, Linux, CUDA 13, BF16 |
Where Jev and djev really differ, and why the bars above land where they do.
Benchmark Heaven’s v1.6 release re-measured every system with a reproducible recipe on a new pool and dropped djev from the roster altogether, so there is no current independent score for it. Every djev figure on this page is from v1.5.6, the last release that measured it, and is quoted beside Jev’s v1.5.6 figures so that both sides come from the same run. Jev’s own current standing is #5 of 135 at 71.5 in v1.6.1; those numbers are not comparable with the v1.5.6 ones below.
In that run, djev was level with Jev on intelligence, 72.3 against 72.0, and well ahead on yes/no questions, 68.2 above chance against 48.2, but on that 110-system board it ranked only #22 at 64.2 against Jev’s #3 at 72.1, because the cost estimate for running DiffusionGemma was the weakest axis on its row, 48.2 against Jev’s 54.7, and the composite punishes one weak axis hard. The gap that matters day to day is calibration: 80.4 against Jev’s 88.0, and djev’s own documentation describes its probabilities as experimental and uncalibrated. That matters as soon as your code does anything other than take the top label — auto-approving above 0.9, escalating below 0.6, weighting a score. Jev also led on choice questions, 86.7 against 74.7, and score questions, 81.1 against 74.1.
The other gap is maturity, and the missing v1.6 row is part of it. djev is still a preview whose terms can change, open-sourcing is planned but has not happened, and it is now absent from the leaderboard everything else here is measured on. Jev is generally available, with published rate limits and a version you can pin.
djev, the DiffusionGemma decision API from Maisa, by Maisa.
djev is built on Google’s DiffusionGemma running under vLLM. A normal language model writes an answer one token at a time; a diffusion model starts from noise across the whole output and refines it. djev exploits that by laying out a small “answer canvas” with one slot per question, denoising the slots together, and reading the probability of each allowed label straight off the result. There is no prose to parse and no JSON to repair.
Maisa runs the hosted service at api.djev.dev as a preview. A separate community repository, djev-dev, publishes the same approach under Apache-2.0 for self-hosting; it recommends a single NVIDIA B200 on Linux with CUDA 13 and unquantised BF16 weights, which is a serious machine. The repository reports sub-100ms warm text responses from internal measurement while noting those figures are not benchmarks for the current BF16 release and do not apply to image requests.
The distinctive capability is multimodal. djev accepts native image inputs, lets you use images as the options in a choice question, and can sample a live camera. Jev is text only: a string, a JSON object or an array. If your decision is about a photograph, Jev cannot make it and djev can.
Maisa entered a second configuration, djev (thinking), and it complicates the section above in Maisa’s favour. In JevBench v1.5.6 its calibration score was 95.7, well clear of Jev’s 88.0 in that release, and its intelligence 77.3 against 72.0.
It still placed only #62 on that board, at 17.4. Thinking takes far more compute per decision, its cost score was 28.1, and the harmonic mean turns one weak axis into a low composite. If the section above left you thinking DiffusionGemma cannot produce trustworthy probabilities, the thinking variant is the counterexample — and it is Maisa’s own. Neither configuration appears in v1.6.1.
If you want to see the calibration difference rather than read about it, run both on your own awkward cases. The Jev AI playground gives you Jev 1.13.0 with no setup; every answer comes back with its full probability distribution and a confidence value, which is the thing you are actually comparing.
Benchmark Heaven’s v1.6 release re-measured every system with a reproducible recipe on a new decision pool, and djev is not on the resulting roster, which now lists 173 systems. Its last published scores are from v1.5.6 and are quoted here as such. Scores from the two releases are not comparable with each other.
Partly. The community djev-dev repository is Apache-2.0 and shows how to run DiffusionGemma decisions on vLLM. Maisa’s hosted djev service says open-sourcing is planned but has not released its implementation.
No. Jev accepts text only: a string, a JSON object or an array. Convert images to text or structured fields first, or use a model that takes pixels.
In JevBench v1.5.6, the last release to measure djev, it answered in a 50ms raw median on the benchmark’s H100 against Jev’s 0.62s over the network; Jev’s own median has since come down to 0.24s in v1.6. Maisa’s hosted preview adds network time on top. Both are fast enough for request-time use; neither is fast enough to sit inside a tight loop without batching.
Maisa’s documentation calls them experimental and uncalibrated, so treat them as a ranking signal rather than a probability until you have validated them on your own labelled data.
Every number on these pages is quoted from a published source and was read on October 9, 2026.
djev and every other product named on this page belongs to its respective owner and is not affiliated with Jev AI. Figures are quoted from the sources above as they read on October 9, 2026 and can change.