On this site
Jev 1.13.0
TypeSafe · System One model
Fifth overall, fifth on Capability, better calibrated, and nothing to run.
71.5JevBench v1.6.1 rank #5 · Capability #5
Jev comparison · JevBench v1.6.1 · updated October 9, 2026
One local model for decisions, chat and images, against a hosted decision model.
On this site
TypeSafe · System One model
Fifth overall, fifth on Capability, better calibrated, and nothing to run.
71.5JevBench v1.6.1 rank #5 · Capability #5
vs
Alternative
EldanRing · Gemma 4 12B decision fine-tune
Eleventh of 135, with typed decisions, chat and vision on a 16 GB GPU.
68.9JevBench v1.6.1 rank #11 · Capability #17
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 Winnow 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 | Winnow |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Hosted System One model from TypeSafe, version jev-1.13.0 | Gemma 4 12B with a merged LoRA fine-tune, released as GGUF |
| Licence | Proprietary, hosted | Apache-2.0, with the Gemma 4 terms that apply to derivatives |
| Request format | POST /v1/systemone | /v1/systemone for decisions and /v1/chat/completions for chat, from one server |
| Question types | Noul, choice, score — many per call, answered in parallel | Noul, choice, score — one branch per question over shared state |
| Inputs | Text only: string, JSON object or array | Text, plus images with the optional vision projector |
| Context | 64k tokens per request | 65,536 positions tested with vision on a 16 GB GPU |
| Calibration | Post-trained with RLCD; JevBench 90.6 | Entropy-based confidence, no fitted calibration map; JevBench 83.0 |
| Training data | Undisclosed | Private; categories described in the model card |
| Hardware | None — it is an API call | A 16 GB GPU for the Q8 build; the BF16 build needs more memory or offloading |
Where Jev and Winnow really differ, and why the bars above land where they do.
Winnow is the strongest system on the board that also chats and reads images, and in v1.5.6 it finished ahead of Jev. The full re-measure in v1.6 reversed that: it is #11 of 135 at 68.9 against Jev’s 71.5 at #5, and its intelligence lead has gone with it — 59.5 against Jev’s 63.6, and 59.2 against 61.6 on the sealed half. It stays below Jev under all three of the benchmark’s orders, eleventh on the official score, thirteenth under B and twelfth under C, so no reweighting brings it back above.
Jev keeps a wide edge on calibration, 90.6 against 83.0; Winnow’s own model card says its confidence is entropy-based and not a guaranteed probability of correctness. By request type Jev leads on choice, 77.4 against 70.1 above chance, and on score questions, 63.2 against 57.0, while Winnow edges it on yes/no, 51.5 against 50.3. Jev is also the faster of the two on the benchmark’s measure, 91.5 against 86.7. On Benchmark Heaven’s headline Capability ranking, which averages intelligence and calibration, Jev is fifth at 77.1 and Winnow seventeenth at 71.2.
Winnow’s case is breadth on your own hardware. The same loaded model serves /v1/systemone for decisions and /v1/chat/completions for chat, takes images through an optional vision projector, and was tested with a 64K context on a single consumer GPU. If you want one local model to decide, explain and look at a screenshot, nothing else on this site does all three.
Winnow-12B, the Gemma 4 decision fine-tune from EldanRing, by EldanRing.
Winnow-12B is a LoRA fine-tune of google/gemma-4-12B-it, merged into the weights and released under Apache-2.0 as two GGUF files: an 8-bit Q8_0 build of about 12.7 GB, recommended for 16 GB GPUs, and a 16-bit BF16 build of about 23.8 GB. A separate 175 MB projector adds image input. It runs in the author’s llama.cpp-based inference server; no conversion step or separate adapter is needed.
For decisions, the server fills in the shared state once, forks one branch per question, and reads the logits of the answer tokens without generating any text, the same idea as Jev’s typed questions. It supports noul, choice and score. It states that it is not affiliated with or endorsed by TypeSafe.
The training data is private. The model card describes curated typed-decision examples covering routing, policy and rule application, evidence selection, workflow decisions, ordinal judgments, entailment, paraphrase and answerability, followed by a refinement pass. It makes no claim that public benchmarks were excluded from the base model’s pretraining data.
On the author’s RTX 5070 Ti test, a four-question request at near-full 64K context took 25 seconds cold and a median of 143ms once the context was cached, with peak GPU memory of 15.01 GiB including the desktop. JevBench v1.6.1 measured it on an RTX 6000 at a 0.12s median per decision before its self-hosting adjustment.
Winnow’s model card also reports a second suite, Kev-v9 clean, with 1,046 items, run by its author with Jev called through OpenRouter on the same inputs and scoring rules. There Jev scores 87.00% against 81.55% for Winnow Q8. On the 231-item public JevBench subset the author reports a tie at 85.71%. These are the author’s measurements, not JevBench’s official composite.
Winnow does more on one GPU than anything else on this site, so the useful comparison is on your own cases and your own constraints. Run them on Jev here with no setup and keep the answers; if Winnow agrees on the decisions you care about and you can run it, a local model that also chats and reads images may still be the better fit.
Not in JevBench v1.6.1: it is #11 at 68.9 against Jev’s #5 at 71.5, with intelligence 59.5 against 63.6 and 59.2 against 61.6 on the sealed half. It was ahead in v1.5.6, on the old pool. Jev is also better calibrated, 90.6 against 83.0.
Yes. With the optional 175 MB vision projector it accepts images through the same server. Jev accepts text only.
The author tested the 8-bit Q8_0 build, about 12.7 GB, with full offload on a 16 GB RTX 5070 Ti at a 64K context, peaking at 15.01 GiB. The 16-bit build is about 23.8 GB and needs more GPU memory or offloading.
Not in the way Jev’s are. Its model card says the server normalises logits over the options you supply and that its entropy-based confidence is not a guaranteed probability of correctness, with no separately fitted calibration map. JevBench v1.6.1 scores its calibration at 83.0 against Jev’s 90.6.
No. It is an independent fine-tune of Gemma 4 12B by EldanRing, and its model card states it is not affiliated with or endorsed by TypeSafe or Google.
Every number on these pages is quoted from a published source and was read on October 9, 2026.
Winnow 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.