Benchmarks
More
OverviewBenchmaxxingCompareChartsCost vs CapabilityProviders per ModelProvider explorerGatewaysEU & SovereignJev-class modelsImage JevBenchAbout
JevBench by Benchmark Heaven · v1.4.2.2 · individual system

jev-local (Qwen3.5-9B)

Jev rebuild · by us (GitHub)

JevBench v1.4.2.2 score

32.5

Rank #39 of 91 ranked systems.

30.7 points behind Jev 1.13.0's 63.3.

Where it sits among the 91 ranked systems. The marked tick is Jev 1.13.0 (63.3).

Published axes

intelligence
45.2
calibration
64.2
speed
69.2
cost
43.3

Against Jev 1.13.0

Four radars compare this fixed pair across the score axes, accuracy per tier, and accuracy by family on the hard tier and sealed set. Further out is better on every spoke.

  • A: jev-local — Jev rebuild · Score 32.5 (#39)
  • B: Jev 1.13.0 — Jev (TypeSafe, closed) · Score 63.3 (#4)

The four score axes

Radar: the four score axes, two systemsThe four score axes, jev-local vs Jev 1.13.0. Intelligence: 45.2 vs 53.1; Calibration: 64.2 vs 76.3; Speed: 69.2 vs 83.3; Cost: 43.3 vs 52.0.50100Intelligence45.2 · 53.1Calibration64.2 · 76.3Speed69.2 · 83.3Cost43.3 · 52.0
0–100, the values in the table. A label-only system has no calibration (counted as 0).

Accuracy per tier, incl. sealed

Radar: accuracy per tier, incl. sealed, two systemsAccuracy per tier, incl. sealed, jev-local vs Jev 1.13.0. Easy: 100% vs 100%; Standard: 84% vs 99%; Judge: 89% vs 95%; Hard: 59% vs 74%; Sealed: 30% vs 37%.50100Easy100% · 100%Standard84% · 99%Judge89% · 95%Hard59% · 74%Sealed30% · 37%
Share correct per tier; Sealed = the 308 private decisions, aggregate only.

Current question set by family (hard + sealed)

Radar: current question set by family (hard + sealed), two systemsCurrent question set by family (hard + sealed), jev-local vs Jev 1.13.0. Ambiguous / abstain: 31% vs 43%; Judge: 51% vs 54%; Long policy: 35% vs 44%; Multi-hop: 44% vs 64%; Probability: 44% vs 63%; Temporal / numeric: 23% vs 28%; Trade-off: 37% vs 55%; Routing: 100% vs 100%; Trap / adversarial: 85% vs 83%; Paraphrase: 36% vs 64%; Safety judge: 25% vs 38%.50100Ambiguous /abstain31% · 43%Judge51% · 54%Long policy35% · 44%Multi-hop44% · 64%Probability44% · 63%Temporal /numeric23% · 28%Trade-off37% · 55%Routing100% · 100%Trap /adversarial85% · 83%Paraphrase36% · 64%Safety judge25% · 38%
Share correct per family across the 220 hard-tier decisions (public and held out) and the 308 sealed decisions of v1.4, pooled; Routing is hard-tier only, Paraphrase and Safety judge sealed only.

Sealed set by family

Radar: sealed set by family, two systemsSealed set by family, jev-local vs Jev 1.13.0. Ambiguous / abstain: 22% vs 30%; Judge: 37% vs 34%; Long policy: 25% vs 28%; Multi-hop: 32% vs 45%; Paraphrase: 36% vs 64%; Probability: 46% vs 50%; Safety judge: 25% vs 38%; Temporal / numeric: 21% vs 29%; Trade-off: 19% vs 38%; Trap / adversarial: 58% vs 42%.50100Ambiguous /abstain22% · 30%Judge37% · 34%Long policy25% · 28%Multi-hop32% · 45%Paraphrase36% · 64%Probability46% · 50%Safety judge25% · 38%Temporal /numeric21% · 29%Trade-off19% · 38%Trap /adversarial58% · 42%
Share correct within each sealed family — system-level aggregates; the items stay private.

Availability and evidence

Openness
Code and weights marked open in the published row
License note
no licence stated in the repository (public code); Apache-2.0 base weights
Cost evidence
estimated; the board’s row disclosure contains the published basis.
Endpoint condition
our RunPod GPU (H100 NVL 96 GB, Canada), reached over the internet from Germany
Note on this row
The author's local Jev-compatible server in its default full configuration: a frozen Qwen3.5-9B scores each option by its mean log-probability (one forward pass per option, no generation, no decision training). Run serially on our GPU. It re-reads the state once per option; if its reported token count covers one pass only, a per-token hosted price would be higher than this estimate.
Published source
https://github.com/us/jev-local

From the public v1.4.2.2 aggregate. Scores and ranks can change when a new release is published.

Read the full board and published method. The overall score is a composite, not raw accuracy.