Jev AI

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

Jev vs Winnow

One local model for decisions, chat and images, against a hosted decision model.

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

vs

Alternative

Winnow

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

  1. JevHosted API, generally availableWhere it runsWinnowSelf-hosted GGUF; Q8 tested on a 16 GB RTX 5070 Ti
  2. JevTyped decisions onlyWhat it doesWinnowTyped decisions, chat and image input from one server
  3. Jev63.6 on JevBenchIntelligenceWinnow59.5 on JevBench
  4. Jev61.6Sealed decisionsWinnow59.2
  5. Jev77.4 above chanceChoice questionsWinnow70.1 above chance
  6. JevCalibrated — 90.6 on JevBenchProbabilitiesWinnowNormalised logits, no fitted calibration — 83.0

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
Winnow59.5

CalibrationWhether 0.8 really means about 80%

Jev90.6
Winnow83.0

SpeedMeasured response time

Jev91.5
Winnow86.7

Intelligence on open and sealed decisions

Open300 decisions from public sources

Jev65.6
Winnow59.8

Sealed1,200 private decisions nobody could tune for

Jev61.6
Winnow59.2

By request type, chance-corrected

ChoicePick one of the options

Jev77.4
Winnow70.1

NoulProbability that a statement is true

Jev50.3
Winnow51.5

ScorePlace the case on a graded scale

Jev63.2
Winnow57.0

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 Winnow 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 Winnow feature by feature

AttributeJev 1.13.0Winnow
What it isHosted System One model from TypeSafe, version jev-1.13.0Gemma 4 12B with a merged LoRA fine-tune, released as GGUF
LicenceProprietary, hostedApache-2.0, with the Gemma 4 terms that apply to derivatives
Request formatPOST /v1/systemone/v1/systemone for decisions and /v1/chat/completions for chat, from one server
Question typesNoul, choice, score — many per call, answered in parallelNoul, choice, score — one branch per question over shared state
InputsText only: string, JSON object or arrayText, plus images with the optional vision projector
Context64k tokens per request65,536 positions tested with vision on a 16 GB GPU
CalibrationPost-trained with RLCD; JevBench 90.6Entropy-based confidence, no fitted calibration map; JevBench 83.0
Training dataUndisclosedPrivate; categories described in the model card
HardwareNone — it is an API callA 16 GB GPU for the Q8 build; the BF16 build needs more memory or offloading

What each one is better at

Where Jev wins

  • Calibration 90.6 against 83.0; Winnow’s confidence is documented as entropy-based rather than a probability of being right.
  • Intelligence 63.6 against 59.5, 61.6 against 59.2 on the sealed half, and ahead on choice and score questions.
  • Nothing to download, serve or tune: no 12.7 GB model file, no GPU scheduling between chat and decision contexts.
  • A hosted, versioned model with published rate limits.

Where Winnow wins

  • #11 of 135 in JevBench v1.6.1 at 68.9, and the strongest system on the board that also chats and reads images.
  • Seventeenth on the Capability ranking at 71.2, and a better cost score than Jev, 56.6 against 54.7.
  • One model for typed decisions, chat and image input, served from the same process.
  • Runs locally on one 16 GB consumer GPU with a 64K context.
  • Apache-2.0 GGUF weights you can run offline or inside your own network.

The analysis

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.

What Winnow actually is

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.

A second benchmark from the author

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.

So which should you use?

Pick Jev if

  • You branch on the probability and need it to mean something without fitting a calibration map yourself.
  • Accuracy and calibration matter most: Jev leads on both, and on every request type.
  • You want a hosted, versioned model with published rate limits rather than a GPU to operate.

Pick Winnow if

  • You want a single local model that decides, chats and reads screenshots or photos.
  • Your data cannot leave your network and you have a 16 GB GPU to spare.
  • You want strong decisions from weights you control, and can run the model yourself.

Try Jev on the cases you are actually arguing about

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.

Jev vs Winnow FAQ

Is Winnow as accurate as Jev?

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.

Can Winnow read images?

Yes. With the optional 175 MB vision projector it accepts images through the same server. Jev accepts text only.

What GPU do I need for Winnow?

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.

Are Winnow’s probabilities calibrated?

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.

Is Winnow affiliated with TypeSafe?

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.

Other Jev comparisons

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

Sources

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.