Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Data as of November 12, 2026 · How the score is built

dots3-note Preview

CurrentOpen WeightReasoning

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.

Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.

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 scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank #38 of 135Percentile 72ndWeight 22%9 benchmarksVerified
57.8
CodingRank Not rankedWeight 20%7 benchmarksVerified
57.1
ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified
75.0
MultimodalRank #28 of 67Percentile 59thWeight 12%10 benchmarksVerified
65.0
KnowledgeRank Not rankedWeight 12%1 benchmarkVerified
75.0
MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
Inst. FollowingRank #35 of 157Percentile 78thWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified
89.1
MathWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified
Score pending

31 of 906 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100

Coverage details

How 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.

  1. Agentic9/9 verified
  2. Coding7/7 verified
  3. Reasoning1/1 verified
  4. Multimodal10/10 verified
  5. Knowledge1/1 verified
  6. MultilingualNot measured
  7. Inst. Following2/2 verified
  8. Math1/1 verified
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

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

  1. Agentic#38/135
  2. CodingNot ranked
  3. ReasoningNot ranked
  4. Multimodal#28/67
  5. KnowledgeNot ranked
  6. MultilingualNot ranked
  7. Inst. Following#35/157
  8. MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

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.

Overall rank
#40
of 215 on the leaderboard
Reported by Dots Studio
31
Shown with that label
Run by a benchmark
0
None yet
Independent runs
0
None yet
Coding7 rows
Coding benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
SWE-bench Pro61%

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 93%

Gap32 behindReported by Dots StudioCounts26% ref. weight
SWE Multilingual75.7%

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 96.6%

Gap20.9 behindReported by Dots StudioCounts5% ref. weight
Terminal-Bench 2.175.1%

Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8%

Gap17.7 behindReported by Dots StudioCountsScored in Agentic
CodeforcesCodeforces Rating3056.0

Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 · 3471.0

Gap415 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
LiveCodeBench v691.5%

Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 93.2%

Gap1.7 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified78.4%

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96%

Gap17.6 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
NL2Repo49.8%

Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 · 68.2%

Gap18.4 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
Agentic9 rows
Agentic benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
Terminal-Bench 2.175.1%

Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8%

Gap17.7 behindReported by Dots StudioCounts9% ref. weight
BrowseComp83.3%

Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5%

Gap9.2 behindReported by Dots StudioCounts9% ref. weight
Toolathlon-Verified55.6%

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 80.6%

Gap25 behindReported by Dots StudioCounts3% ref. weight
HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with tools52.6%

Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 70.0%

Gap17.4 behindReported by Dots StudioCounts3% ref. weight
DeepSearchQA92.1%

Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 96.0%

Gap3.9 behindReported by Dots StudioCounts2% ref. weight
Claw-Eval73.4%

Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4%

Gap8 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
skillsBench52.8%

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 70.2%

Gap17.4 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
APEX-Agents30.8%

Best verified: Hy4 · 75.2%

Gap44.4 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
WideResearch78.9%

Best verified: Hy4 preview · 83.9%

Gap5 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
Reasoning1 row
Reasoning benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v281.4%

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 95%

Gap13.6 behindReported by Dots StudioCounts15% ref. weight
Multimodal10 rows
Multimodal benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro79.1%

Best verified: GPT-6.1 Terra · 85.5%

Gap6.4 behindReported by Dots StudioCounts30% ref. weight
CharXiv w/o toolsCharXiv Reasoning without tools83.1%

Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 89%

Gap5.9 behindReported by Dots StudioCounts7% ref. weight
SimpleVQA72.5%

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 81.7%

Gap9.2 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
MathVision87.7%

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 95.2%

Gap7.5 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
ZeroBench19.0%

Best verified: Muse Spark Open · 50.0%

Gap31 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
GDP.pdf (no tools)GDP.pdf mean criteria pass rate without tools60.7%

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 85.4%

Gap24.7 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
PerceptionBenchPerceptionBench (Internal)53.4%

Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 68.3%

Gap14.9 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
BabyVision50.0%

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 82.0%

Gap32 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
MMVUMultimodal Multi-disciplinary Video Understanding79.9%

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 82.4%

Gap2.5 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
VideoMMMU86.8%

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 88.7%

Gap1.9 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
Knowledge1 row
Knowledge benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
HLEHumanity's Last Exam52.6%

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.2 · 74.2%

Gap21.6 behindReported by Dots StudioCounts44% ref. weight
Inst. Following2 rows
Inst. Following benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
IFBenchInstruction Following Benchmark80.4%

Best verified: Flint · 89.2%

Gap8.8 behindReported by Dots StudioCountsWeighted 70%
IFEvalInstruction-Following Eval93.9%

Best verified: LFM2.5-24B-A2B · 96.8%

Gap2.8 behindReported by Dots StudioShown only
Math1 row
Math benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
IMOAnswerBench90.9%

Best verified: dots3-note Preview · 90.9%

GapHighest listedReported by Dots StudioShown 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.

  1. Aug 14, 2026 · you are here

    dots3-note Preview

    Score 62.8 · Price not listed

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
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.

dots3-note Preview
API / moNo API price on file
Self-host / mo$13,981
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

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.

Compare dots3-note Preview with every tracked model1030 comparisons