The first System One model. Reads a state, answers typed Choice, Score and Noul questions in one call with calibrated probabilities, and generates no text. Closed weights, served by TypeSafe AI.
TokenRhythm's prefill-only decision model for agent workflows. Built on its NeoHorse-1-4B (a Qwen3.5-4B derivative), it predicts Choice, Noul and Score answers over application-defined options without generating text, with optional single-image input.
Decides
choice, score, noul, classify, route
choice, score, noul, classify, route
Architecture
jev
neohorse
Fine-tuned from
—
tokenrhythm/neohorse-1-4b
License
proprietary
apache-2.0
Availability
Hosted API
Open weights
Hosted by
TypeSafe AI
—
Input price
$0.042/MTok
—
Decision accuracy
—
75.3%
Calibration error
—
—
Valid action rate
—
—
Median latency
—
—
p95 latency
—
—
Figures are from each model’s manifest; accuracy and latency are what the publishers report, on their own suites and hardware. Add a third model.
Questions
What is the difference between jev and neohorse-jev?
jev is from TypeSafe AI and neohorse-jev from TokenRhythm. jev is only available as a hosted API; neohorse-jev has open weights you can download and run. Both answer choice, score, noul, classify and route questions. jev is licensed proprietary; neohorse-jev, apache-2.0.
Which is more accurate, jev or neohorse-jev?
Only neohorse-jev publishes an accuracy figure (75.3% on JevBench public set (231 items), vLLM, maker's run); jev does not, so there is no comparison to make without your own test.
Which is cheaper, jev or neohorse-jev?
jev: $0.042 / $0 per 1M. neohorse-jev: Free (open weights). Open weights cost nothing per call beyond your own hardware.
Can I run jev or neohorse-jev locally?
neohorse-jev yes — systemone pull tokenrhythm/neohorse-jev downloads its weights. The other is only served as a hosted API.
Evaluation suite
—
JevBench public set (231 items), vLLM, maker's run
