Jev AI

Jev comparison · JevBench v1.6.1 · updated October 9, 2026

Jev vs djev

Level with Jev when it was last measured, and more expensive to run.

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

vs

Alternative

djev

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

  1. JevHosted API, generally availableWhere it runsdjevHosted preview; JevBench ran the open release on its own GPU
  2. JevText onlySupported inputsdjevText, images, image options and live camera
  3. JevRanked #5 of 135 at 71.5In the current releasedjevNot on the v1.6.1 roster
  4. Jev72.0Intelligence, v1.5.6djev72.3
  5. JevCalibrated — 88.0Probabilities, v1.5.6djevMaisa documents them as experimental — 80.4
  6. Jev48.2 above chanceYes/no questions, v1.5.6djev68.2 above chance
  7. JevNoOpen sourcedjevThe community repo is Apache-2.0; the hosted service is not released

JevBench v1.6.1, measured the same way

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.

Composite score

#1 Sage 1.3.074.0
#2 H2O-Lightning-4B72.5
#3 Mercury Decide72.4
#4 decisio 31B71.7
#5 Jev71.5
#6 Quyet-1.0-Large71.4
#7 decider-12b v270.9
#8 wity-170.8
#9 decider-12b v170.4
#10 torchcast-12b69.9
#11 Winnow68.9
#12 deck-31B68.7
#13 Cygnet68.6
#14 decisio v0.8.068.2
#16 Jev-Omni67.7
#17 Xor 26B-A4B67.4
#30 Plumb-4B48.3
#39 decider-4b41.2
#41 JevK5 v0.337.4
#52 Hopper28.9
#53 Imajev-4B28.7
#80 SemIf15.5
#127 Laya0.0

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.

Every system on the board

The capability scores are charted above; this is the ranking and the deployment detail behind them. Jev and djev are highlighted.

ModelRankScoreMeasured latencyRuns on
Sage 1.3.0 (Levanto Labs, hosted API)#174.00.15s median / 0.29s p95Hosted API
H2O-Lightning-4B v1.1 (H2O.ai, Qwen3.5-4B)#272.50.03s raw, 0.21s adjustedSelf-hosted GPU
Mercury Decide (Inception, diffusion decision API)#372.40.33s median / 0.85s p95Hosted API
decisio v0.8.0 on Gemma 4 31B (Amin Roudaki, frozen base)#471.70.05s raw, 0.24s adjustedSelf-hosted, H100
Jev 1.13.0 (TypeSafe)#571.50.24s median / 0.30s p95Hosted API
Quyet-1.0-Large (Chinh Nguyen, Gemma 4 31B decoder)#671.40.12s raw, 0.38s adjustedSelf-hosted, H100
decider-12b v2 (Mapika, Gemma 4 12B)#770.90.05s raw, 0.26s adjustedSelf-hosted, RTX PRO 6000
wity-1 (Wity, closed API, reasoning auto)#870.81.57s median / 4.21s p95Hosted API
decider-12b v1 (Mapika, stock Gemma 4 12B)#970.40.05s raw, 0.26s adjustedSelf-hosted, RTX PRO 6000
torchcast-decision-12b (Torchcast AI, Gemma 4 12B)#1069.90.04s raw, 0.22s adjustedSelf-hosted, H100
Winnow-12B Q8 (EldanRing, Gemma 4 12B)#1168.90.12s raw, 0.38s adjustedSelf-hosted, RTX 6000
deck-31B (krishna765, frozen Gemma 4 31B)#1268.70.13s raw, 0.40s adjustedSelf-hosted GPU
Cygnet (blockbrain, frozen Gemma 4 12B)#1368.60.04s raw, 0.22s adjustedSelf-hosted, RTX PRO 6000
decisio v0.8.0 on Gemma 4 12B (Amin Roudaki, frozen base)#1468.20.10s raw, 0.35s adjustedSelf-hosted GPU
Jev-Omni (akhilaaa3, Gemma 4 12B)#1667.70.15s raw, 0.46s adjustedSelf-hosted, RTX 6000
Xor 26B-A4B (Juspay, Gemma 4 26B-A4B)#1767.40.06s raw, 0.27s adjustedSelf-hosted GPU
Plumb-4B (crh225, JevK5 v0.2 + LoRA)#3048.30.02s raw, 0.19s adjustedSelf-hosted, H100
decider-4b v2 (Mapika, Qwen3.5-4B)#3941.20.02s raw, 0.20s adjustedSelf-hosted, RTX 5090
JevK5 v0.3 (allebee, Qwen3.5-4B)#4137.40.02s raw, 0.19s adjustedSelf-hosted, H100
Hopper (HopitAI, Qwen3.5-4B LoRA)#5228.90.06s raw, 0.26s adjustedSelf-hosted, RTX A6000
Imajev-4B (Mohit Garg, Qwen3.5-4B LoRA)#5328.70.07s raw, 0.29s adjustedSelf-hosted, RTX 5090
SemIf (Qwen3.5-4B)#8015.50.05s raw, 0.25s adjustedSelf-hosted, RTX 5090
Laya (ModernBERT-large)#1270.00.83s raw, 1.80s adjustedSelf-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.

Jev and djev feature by feature

AttributeJev 1.13.0djev
What it isHosted System One model from TypeSafe, version jev-1.13.0Hosted DiffusionGemma decision API from Maisa, in preview
Question typesNoul (yes/no), choice, score — many per call, answered in parallelNoul, choice, score
InputsText only: string, JSON object or arrayText, native images, image options, live camera frames
Context64k tokens per request (32k for state plus the longest question)Not published for the hosted preview
CalibrationTrained with RLCD; JevBench v1.6.1 calibration 90.6Documented by Maisa as experimental and uncalibrated; 80.4 in v1.5.6, its last measurement
Open weightsNoCommunity djev-dev repo is Apache-2.0; Maisa’s hosted service is not yet released
Self-hostingNot availablePossible: roughly one NVIDIA B200, Linux, CUDA 13, BF16

What each one is better at

Where Jev wins

  • Calibration 88.0 against 80.4 in v1.5.6. Jev’s probabilities are trained and measured to mean something; djev’s are published as experimental.
  • Still measured: Jev is #5 of 135 in JevBench v1.6.1, while djev has left the roster and has no current independent score.
  • Choice questions 86.7 against 74.7 above chance in v1.5.6, and score questions 81.1 against 74.1.
  • General availability and published rate limits (250,000 tokens per second, 1,200 requests per minute) instead of preview terms that can change.
  • A pinnable version. jev-latest resolves to jev-1.13.0 and you can name the version explicitly.

Where djev wins

  • Intelligence level with Jev in v1.5.6, 72.3 against 72.0, and ahead on yes/no questions, 68.2 against 48.2 above chance.
  • Reads images, scores image options and can sample a live camera. Jev cannot do any of that.
  • Speed 91.0 in the benchmark’s own H100 run in v1.5.6, against Jev’s 83.8 over the network in that release.

The analysis

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.

What djev actually is

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.

One djev is better calibrated than Jev

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.

So which should you use?

Pick Jev if

  • Your code branches on the number, not just the argmax — auto-approve, escalate, weight, or route by confidence.
  • Your decisions are mostly choices or graded scores, where Jev scored higher the last time both were measured together.
  • You want a current independent score to point at, and to forecast cost and hold a version steady across a release.

Pick djev if

  • Your decision is about an image, a frame or a scanned document you have not converted to text.
  • Latency is the binding constraint and you only need the winning label, not a trustworthy probability.
  • You are comfortable building against a preview whose terms are not final.

Try Jev on the cases you are actually arguing about

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.

Jev vs djev FAQ

Why is there no current JevBench score for djev?

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.

Is djev open source?

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.

Can Jev read images like djev?

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.

Which is faster, Jev or djev?

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.

Can I use djev probabilities as thresholds?

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.

Other Jev comparisons

Every number on these pages is quoted from a published source and was read on October 9, 2026.

Sources

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.