Data as of November 12, 2026 · How the score is built
dots3-note Preview
Decision readingdots3-note Preview scores 62.8 out of 100 and ranks #40 of 215. This profile shows 31 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #28. Published weights can be self-hosted, but infrastructure cost varies and is not a comparable API token rate.
Email me when its price, rank or availability changes.
Capability
62.8/100
field median 49.4#40 of 215 ranked models
Public
#40of 215
Verified —
Price
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
input median $0.60No comparable first-party hosted token rate
Speed
Not measured
field median 92 tok/sTime to first token not measured
Context
512Ktokens
field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately
Decision snapshot
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Strongest published evidence
Multimodal & Grounded ranks #28. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
Validate before choosing
31 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.
Source-linked · 31 displayable benchmark rows
Is dots3-note Preview right for your job?
Its place on the LLM Selector’s job rankings, the same order the job pages publish. Describe your own job to see where it stands for that.
Where dots3-note Preview ranks by benchmark score:
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
Category score record
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #38 of 135Percentile 72ndWeight 22%9 benchmarksVerified | 57.8 | 9 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank Not rankedWeight 20%7 benchmarksVerified | 57.1 | 7 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified | 75.0 | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MultimodalRank #28 of 67Percentile 59thWeight 12%10 benchmarksVerified | 65.0 | 10 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| KnowledgeRank Not rankedWeight 12%1 benchmarkVerified | 75.0 | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingRank #35 of 157Percentile 78thWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified | 89.1 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MathWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | Score pending | 1 benchmark | Verified |
31 of 906 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow much of this is verified
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
- Agentic9/9 verified
- Coding7/7 verified
- Reasoning1/1 verified
- Multimodal10/10 verified
- Knowledge1/1 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. Following2/2 verified
- Math1/1 verified
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
dots3-note Preview category percentile values
- Agentic72nd percentile
- CodingNot eligible
- ReasoningNot eligible
- Multimodal59th percentile
- KnowledgeNot eligible
- MultilingualNot eligible
- Instruction following78th percentile
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#38/135
- CodingNot ranked
- ReasoningNot ranked
- Multimodal#28/67
- KnowledgeNot ranked
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. Following#35/157
- MathNot ranked
Benchmark ledger
Every result says who ran the test. For this model, Dots Studio ran all 31. Coding opens by default. The tick marks the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference.
Coding7 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Who ran it | Use in ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Pro | 61% | Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 93% | Gap32 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Counts26% ref. weight |
| SWE Multilingual | 75.7% | Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 96.6% | Gap20.9 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Counts5% ref. weight |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | 75.1% | Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap17.7 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | CountsScored in Agentic |
| CodeforcesCodeforces Rating | 3056.0 | Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 · 3471.0 | Gap415 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | 91.5% | Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 93.2% | Gap1.7 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | 78.4% | Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap17.6 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| NL2Repo | 49.8% | Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 · 68.2% | Gap18.4 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
Agentic9 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Who ran it | Use in ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | 75.1% | Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap17.7 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Counts9% ref. weight |
| BrowseComp | 83.3% | Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5% | Gap9.2 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Counts9% ref. weight |
| Toolathlon-Verified | 55.6% | Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 80.6% | Gap25 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Counts3% ref. weight |
| HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with tools | 52.6% | Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 70.0% | Gap17.4 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Counts3% ref. weight |
| DeepSearchQA | 92.1% | Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 96.0% | Gap3.9 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Counts2% ref. weight |
| Claw-Eval | 73.4% | Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4% | Gap8 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| skillsBench | 52.8% | Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 70.2% | Gap17.4 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| APEX-Agents | 30.8% | Best verified: Hy4 · 75.2% | Gap44.4 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| WideResearch | 78.9% | Best verified: Hy4 preview · 83.9% | Gap5 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
Reasoning1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Who ran it | Use in ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2 | 81.4% | Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 95% | Gap13.6 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Counts15% ref. weight |
Multimodal10 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Who ran it | Use in ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | 79.1% | Best verified: GPT-6.1 Terra · 85.5% | Gap6.4 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Counts30% ref. weight |
| CharXiv w/o toolsCharXiv Reasoning without tools | 83.1% | Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 89% | Gap5.9 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Counts7% ref. weight |
| SimpleVQA | 72.5% | Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 81.7% | Gap9.2 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| MathVision | 87.7% | Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 95.2% | Gap7.5 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| ZeroBench | 19.0% | Best verified: Muse Spark Open · 50.0% | Gap31 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)GDP.pdf mean criteria pass rate without tools | 60.7% | Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 85.4% | Gap24.7 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| PerceptionBenchPerceptionBench (Internal) | 53.4% | Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 68.3% | Gap14.9 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| BabyVision | 50.0% | Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 82.0% | Gap32 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| MMVUMultimodal Multi-disciplinary Video Understanding | 79.9% | Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 82.4% | Gap2.5 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
| VideoMMMU | 86.8% | Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 88.7% | Gap1.9 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
Knowledge1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Who ran it | Use in ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | 52.6% | Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 74.2% | Gap21.6 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Counts44% ref. weight |
Inst. Following2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Who ran it | Use in ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFBenchInstruction Following Benchmark | 80.4% | Best verified: Flint · 89.2% | Gap8.8 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | CountsWeighted 70% |
| IFEvalInstruction-Following Eval | 93.9% | Best verified: LFM2.5-24B-A2B · 96.8% | Gap2.8 behind | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
Math1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Who ran it | Use in ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMOAnswerBench | 90.9% | Best verified: dots3-note Preview · 90.9% | GapHighest listed | Reported by Dots Studio | Shown only |
Outlined bars are lab-reported. Filled bars are benchmark-run or independent.
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
preview · Preview
Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- Not publisheddots3-note Preview model card
- Context window
- 512Kdots3-note Preview model card
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- text, image, video, audiodots3-note-prev model card
- Output modalities
- textdots3-note-prev model card
- Parameters
- Not sourced yet
- Availability
- Dots Studio publishes BF16 and FP8 checkpoints for self-hosted deployment under Apache-2.0. The model card documents text, image, video, and audio input with text output; it does not publish a first-party hosted API or token rate.
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- Current
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Not documented in the pricing recorddots3-note Preview model card
- Self-host
- dots3-note Preview needs ~320GB VRAM (4× NVIDIA H100 (80GB)).
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
dots3-note Preview ranks #40 of 215 on the public leaderboard with a score of 62.79/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
dots3-note Preview is a open weight model with a 512K context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
Dots Studio publishes BF16 and FP8 checkpoints for self-hosted deployment under Apache-2.0. The model card documents text, image, video, and audio input with text output; it does not publish a first-party hosted API or token rate.
Official exact-value snapshot from Dots Studio's dots3-note Preview model card. BenchLM maps only launch rows with compatible local benchmark keys, keeps Terminal-Bench 2.1 and LiveCodeBench v6 separate from older weighted lanes, and leaves ARC-AGI-3 harness variants, WorldVQA without a documented ForceAnswer setup, MME Video-v2, and other unsupported protocols outside the schema. Dots Studio reports a 280B-total, 16B-active multimodal MoE with a 512K-token context window.
31 of 906 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #28, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #38. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.
Last updated November 12, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Deployment options
Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Questions
How does dots3-note Preview perform overall in AI benchmarks?
dots3-note Preview ranks #40 out of 215 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 62.79/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 31 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is dots3-note Preview good for knowledge and understanding?
dots3-note Preview has source-displayable benchmark coverage for knowledge and understanding, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is dots3-note Preview good for coding and programming?
dots3-note Preview has source-displayable benchmark coverage for coding and programming, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is dots3-note Preview good for mathematics?
dots3-note Preview has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is dots3-note Preview good for reasoning and logic?
dots3-note Preview has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is dots3-note Preview good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
dots3-note Preview ranks #38 out of 135 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 57.8/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is dots3-note Preview good for multimodal and grounded tasks?
dots3-note Preview ranks #28 out of 67 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 65/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is dots3-note Preview good for instruction following?
dots3-note Preview ranks #35 out of 157 eligible models for instruction following, with a public category score of 89.1/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is dots3-note Preview open source?
dots3-note Preview is an open-weight model from Dots Studio. Its weights can be downloaded for local or hosted deployment, subject to the published license. Open weight does not automatically mean open source: training data and training code may remain private, and commercial restrictions can still apply.
Does dots3-note Preview have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. dots3-note Preview currently has 31 source-displayable rows. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
What is the context window size of dots3-note Preview?
dots3-note Preview has a documented context window of 512K. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.