Jev AI

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

Jev vs Imajev-4B

A 4B model that reads photos, against the model it copies on text.

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

vs

Alternative

Imajev-4B

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

  1. JevHosted API, generally availableWhere it runsImajev-4BSelf-hosted on a Mac or one GPU
  2. JevText onlyInputsImajev-4BText, plus up to two photos per request
  3. JevNot documented as a separate outputCan’t tellImajev-4BA trained unknown probability on every answer
  4. Jev63.6 on JevBenchIntelligenceImajev-4B34.6 on JevBench
  5. Jev61.6Sealed decisionsImajev-4B34.2
  6. Jev50.3 above chanceYes/no questionsImajev-4B0.3 above chance
  7. Jev91.5 · 0.24s median over the networkSpeedImajev-4B90.5 · 0.07s raw on the benchmark’s GPU
  8. Jev64k tokens per requestInput sizeImajev-4BState up to 32 KB, about 8k tokens

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.

Capability, higher is better

IntelligenceHow often it picks the right answer, half from sealed decisions

Jev63.6
Imajev-4B34.6

CalibrationWhether 0.8 really means about 80%

Jev90.6
Imajev-4B89.2

SpeedMeasured response time

Jev91.5
Imajev-4B90.5

Intelligence on open and sealed decisions

Open300 decisions from public sources

Jev65.6
Imajev-4B35.0

Sealed1,200 private decisions nobody could tune for

Jev61.6
Imajev-4B34.2

By request type, chance-corrected

ChoicePick one of the options

Jev77.4
Imajev-4B64.4

NoulProbability that a statement is true

Jev50.3
Imajev-4B0.3

ScorePlace the case on a graded scale

Jev63.2
Imajev-4B39.1

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.

Every system on the board

The capability scores are charted above; this is the ranking and the deployment detail behind them. Jev and Imajev-4B 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 Imajev-4B feature by feature

AttributeJev 1.13.0Imajev-4B
What it isHosted System One model from TypeSafe, version jev-1.13.0Open LoRA adapter and decision readout on Qwen3.5-4B; also 2B and 9B
LicenceProprietary, hostedApache-2.0 adapters and code; Apache-2.0 Qwen base
Request formatPOST /v1/systemoneThe same contract, plus images, unknown_probability and abstained
InputsText only: string, JSON object or arrayText, plus up to two images per request
Question typesNoul, choice, score — many per call, answered in parallelNoul, choice, score — 1 to 8 questions and 2 to 254 options per request
Context64k tokens per requestState up to 32 KB, about 8k tokens
AbstainingNot documented as a separate outputA trained unknown option on every answer
CalibrationPost-trained with RLCD; JevBench 90.6One fitted temperature per size, 1.305 for the 4B; JevBench 89.2
LanguagesBest in English; other languages work with lower accuracyEnglish only
HardwareNone — it is an API callApple silicon through MLX or one CUDA GPU; 9.3 GB base weights for the 4B

What each one is better at

Where Jev wins

  • Intelligence 63.6 against 34.6, and #5 of 135 in JevBench v1.6.1 against #53.
  • Sealed half 61.6 against 34.2: the gap holds on decisions nobody could tune for.
  • Yes/no questions 50.3 above chance against 0.3.
  • 64k tokens per request against a state of about 8k tokens.
  • Nothing to download or serve, and a hosted version with published rate limits.

Where Imajev-4B wins

  • Reads up to two photos per request and checks them against your record. Jev reads text only.
  • A trained unknown on every answer, so cases the evidence cannot settle can go to a person.
  • A 71ms raw median on the benchmark’s GPU, and nothing leaves your network.
  • Calibration close to Jev’s, 89.2 against 90.6, and second on Image JevBench v0.3.0, ahead of Jev-Omni.
  • Open weights that run on a Mac or one GPU inside your own network.

The analysis

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.

What Imajev-4B actually is

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.

What its author says about its limits

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.

So which should you use?

Pick Jev if

  • Your inputs are long text: documents, traces or tickets past about 8k tokens.
  • Your decisions are mostly text, especially yes/no judgments, where Jev is far ahead.
  • You want a hosted, versioned model with nothing to serve.

Pick Imajev-4B if

  • Your decisions depend on a photo: a listing against its picture, a return against what was shipped, a part against a known-good one.
  • You want the model to say it cannot tell, and send those cases to a person.
  • You need open weights that run on a Mac or one GPU inside your own network.

Try Jev on the cases you are actually arguing about

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.

Jev vs Imajev-4B FAQ

Is Imajev-4B better than Jev?

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.

Why did Imajev-4B drop from first place?

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.

Can Imajev read images?

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.

Is Imajev made by TypeSafe?

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.

Do Jev requests work with Imajev?

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.

How does Imajev-4B compare with Jev-Omni?

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.

Other Jev comparisons

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

Sources

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.