On this site
Jev 1.13.0
TypeSafe · System One model
Fifth overall, fifth on Capability, and 29 points ahead on intelligence.
71.5JevBench v1.6.1 rank #5 · Capability #5
Jev comparison · JevBench v1.6.1 · updated October 9, 2026
A 4B model that reads photos, against the model it copies on text.
On this site
TypeSafe · System One model
Fifth overall, fifth on Capability, and 29 points ahead on intelligence.
71.5JevBench v1.6.1 rank #5 · Capability #5
vs
Alternative
Mohit Garg · Open Qwen3.5-4B decision model that also reads photos
Fifty-third of 135 on text, and it reads photos.
28.7JevBench v1.6.1 rank #53 · Capability #35
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.
IntelligenceHow often it picks the right answer, half from sealed decisions
CalibrationWhether 0.8 really means about 80%
SpeedMeasured response time
Open300 decisions from public sources
Sealed1,200 private decisions nobody could tune for
ChoicePick one of the options
NoulProbability that a statement is true
ScorePlace the case on a graded scale
The sealed half, highlighted, is where results cannot have been tuned: nobody outside the benchmark has seen those decisions. Request types are scored above chance, so 0 means guessing and a value below 0 means worse than guessing.
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 Imajev-4B 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 | Imajev-4B |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Hosted System One model from TypeSafe, version jev-1.13.0 | Open LoRA adapter and decision readout on Qwen3.5-4B; also 2B and 9B |
| Licence | Proprietary, hosted | Apache-2.0 adapters and code; Apache-2.0 Qwen base |
| Request format | POST /v1/systemone | The same contract, plus images, unknown_probability and abstained |
| Inputs | Text only: string, JSON object or array | Text, plus up to two images per request |
| Question types | Noul, choice, score — many per call, answered in parallel | Noul, choice, score — 1 to 8 questions and 2 to 254 options per request |
| Context | 64k tokens per request | State up to 32 KB, about 8k tokens |
| Abstaining | Not documented as a separate output | A trained unknown option on every answer |
| Calibration | Post-trained with RLCD; JevBench 90.6 | One fitted temperature per size, 1.305 for the 4B; JevBench 89.2 |
| Languages | Best in English; other languages work with lower accuracy | English only |
| Hardware | None — it is an API call | Apple silicon through MLX or one CUDA GPU; 9.3 GB base weights for the 4B |
Where Jev and Imajev-4B really differ, and why the bars above land where they do.
The ranking reversed between releases. In JevBench v1.4.2.2 Imajev-4B was first, 67.4 against Jev’s 63.3. v1.6 re-measured every system on a new pool of 1,500 decisions, 1,200 of them sealed. There Imajev-4B, measured on an RTX 5090, ranks #53 of 135 at 28.7, and Jev #5 at 71.5. On Benchmark Heaven’s headline Capability ranking, which averages intelligence and calibration, Jev is fifth and Imajev-4B thirty-fifth.
The gap is intelligence: 63.6 against 34.6. Jev scores 61.6 on the sealed half against Imajev-4B’s 34.2, and the widest difference is on yes/no questions, where Jev scores 50.3 above chance against 0.3 — on the new pool Imajev-4B is barely above guessing on them, which is what drags its score down to 28.7. On choice questions they are closer, 77.4 against 64.4. Imajev-4B keeps an edge on the benchmark’s cost estimate, 63.3 against 54.7, but no longer on speed, 90.5 against 91.5, or calibration, 89.2 against 90.6.
The larger difference is still what it can look at. Jev reads text only; Imajev takes up to two photos in the same request and checks them against the record you send, and every answer carries a trained probability that the evidence cannot settle the question. JevBench measures neither. On Benchmark Heaven’s separate Image JevBench v0.3.0 it leads the Capability ranking, ahead of Jev-Omni in eighth; the Imajev-4B vs Jev-Omni page covers it.
Imajev-4B, the open image-capable decision model, by Mohit Garg.
Imajev is a family of open decision models by Mohit Garg in three sizes, 2B, 4B and 9B, each a LoRA adapter and a 255-code decision readout on Qwen3.5. The 4B, the recommended default, keeps Qwen3.5-4B’s vision tower frozen. It reads the state, up to two images and each question, then takes the probability of each option from one position without generating text. The adapters and code are Apache-2.0, as is the Qwen base.
Its server accepts the same /v1/systemone request and response as TypeSafe’s Jev and adds images, an unknown probability and an abstained flag; the README says text-only Jev requests work unchanged. Per request it takes up to two images, a state up to 32 KB, one to eight questions and 2 to 254 options. It runs on Apple silicon through MLX or on a CUDA GPU, and the 4B needs a 9.3 GB base-model download. The author measures about 0.1s per question raw on one H100, and about 0.35s as shipped, averaging four option orders.
It was trained on about a million decisions in four stages, labelled by people or by open-weight teacher models. The author states that no Jev outputs, no paid-API outputs and no JevBench items were used, and that JevBench items were screened out with an 8-gram check. JevBench measured the released 4B adapter on an RTX 5090, with one option order and the shipped calibration file.
The README is candid. On the public hard split alone, two other open models, JevK5 and Eikos-4B, are ahead of every Imajev size. Without its calibration file the model is over-confident on hard items. An empty field can be read as “no” instead of unknown, and English is the only supported language.
Its own image benchmark, ImajevBench, uses AI-generated images that have not yet had a human audit, and it was one input to choosing the released checkpoints. Benchmark Heaven’s separate Image JevBench is an independent check on the photos; the Imajev-4B vs Jev-Omni page covers it.
Imajev-4B trails Jev on text but does something Jev cannot with photos, so the useful test is your own cases. Run the text ones on Jev here with no setup and keep the answers. If your decisions need a photo, this site also hosts Jev-Omni, the other open decision model that reads images.
Not on text in the current benchmark. JevBench v1.6.1 ranks Jev #5 at 71.5 and Imajev-4B #53 at 28.7; Jev leads on intelligence, 63.6 against 34.6. Under the earlier protocol, in v1.4.2.2, Imajev-4B was first. It is cheaper to run, and it reads photos, which Jev cannot.
The benchmark changed, not the model. v1.5 began counting the sealed half as half of intelligence and weighting yes/no, choice and score requests equally, and v1.6 re-measured everything on a new 1,500-decision pool with 1,200 sealed items. Imajev-4B scores 0.3 above chance on yes/no questions there, which pulls its intelligence down to 34.6 and, through the harmonic mean’s floor, its score to 28.7.
Yes. It takes up to two images per request, for example a reference and a target, alongside the state and questions. JevBench is a text-only benchmark and does not test that.
No. It is an independent Apache-2.0 project by Mohit Garg that mirrors Jev’s request contract. Its author states that no Jev outputs were used in training.
Its README says text-only requests written for Jev’s /v1/systemone work unchanged, and the response adds unknown_probability and abstained fields. Check your state size against its 32 KB limit first.
Both are open decision models that read images. On the text JevBench v1.6.1, Jev-Omni is #16 at 67.7 and Imajev-4B #53 at 28.7. On Image JevBench v0.3.0, Imajev-4B is second at 63.7 and Jev-Omni seventh at 32.8. The Imajev-4B vs Jev-Omni page puts them side by side.
Every number on these pages is quoted from a published source and was read on October 9, 2026.
Imajev-4B 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.