Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Ember-1 vs Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs 75.0x less per output token than Ember-1 ($0.20 vs $15.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Ember-1Fireworks
Coding
52.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$15.00
Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyNVIDIA
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.20
vs $15.00 vs $0.20 per 1M output tokens. Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety is 75.0x cheaper.

Ember-1 or Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety: which to pick

Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety for output tokens 75.0x cheaper ($0.20 vs $15.00 per million).

No benchmark has tested both yet. Ember-1 has results on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Code migration (Vals AI); Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Ember-1 52.6 from 2 benchmarks, Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Ember-1 $15.00 against Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety $0.20 per million output tokens, 75.0x apart.
Context window
Ember-1 takes 1.05M tokens, Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety 131K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index5 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Ember-1 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
BenchmarkEmber-1Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyLeader
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)20.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)83.9%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)32.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
IOI (Vals AI)46.3%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)69.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Ember-1 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
BenchmarkEmber-1Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyLeader
Finance Agent (Vals AI)51.8%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)31.1%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)44.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)63.4%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)67.0%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)5.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Vals Science Index31.8%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Ember-1 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
BenchmarkEmber-1Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyLeader
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)22.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
General benchmarks for Ember-1 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
BenchmarkEmber-1Nemotron 3.5 Content SafetyLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)66.2%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 47 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Ember-1$0.011Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety$0.0003Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Ember-1$0.195Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety$0.011Fits in one request

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Ember-1$0.750Fits in one request
Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety$0.042Exceeds the context window

Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Ember-1 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
SpecificationFireworks Ember-1NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety
MakerFireworksNVIDIA
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 24, 2026June 4, 2026
Context window1.05M131K
Input $/Mtok$3.00$0.20
Output $/Mtok$15.00$0.20
Coding index52.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Ember-1 better than Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety for coding?

Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety for output tokens 75.0x cheaper ($0.20 vs $15.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Ember-1 or Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety?

Ember-1 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety costs $0.20 and $0.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Ember-1 or Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety?

Ember-1, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

Has any benchmark tested both Ember-1 and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Ember-1 has results on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Code migration (Vals AI); Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next