📡 LLM Pulse|🆕 New on leaderboard: Baidu: ERNIE-Light-DT-1.0 by Baidu — $1.13/M tokensLearn more →1/10

Measurement sources and verification status (17 fields)

Collected third-party figures are not independent tests. A source link and collection date do not establish reproducibility. Exact model version, dataset and test settings may be missing. No independent verification date is supplied.

speed: 160

latency: 0.29

contextWindow: 1048576

inputPrice: 0.3

outputPrice: 2.5

benchmarkMmlu: 87.5

benchmarkHumanEval: 87

benchmarkMath: 90

benchmarkGpqa: 71

reasoningScore: 81

codingScore: 87

benchmarkSweBench: 44

aaIntelligenceIndex: 12

aaCostPerTask: 0.69

aaOutputSpeed: 1.6

aaLatency: 3.97

aaEndToEndTime: 8.29

Google: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

google🔒 Proprietary

LLM Stats Scores

81.0

Reasoning

87.0

Coding

🎯

71.0%GPQA Diamond — graduate-level science accuracy

Published benchmark evidence

Task scores are reported independently by each publisher; they are not combined into a hidden quality score.

View HLE source ↗

18.8%

Humanity's Last Exam

44.0%

SWE-bench

Artificial Analysis measurements

Published operational results. Cost per task, speed, and latency are kept separate from provider API prices.

View source ↗

Intelligence

AA Index

Cost / task

$0.69

AA measured

Output speed

tokens / second

TTFT

3.97s

AA measured

Response time

8.29s

end to end

Collected 11/11/2026

BenchLM performance measurements

Published output speed and first-token timing, kept separate from provider pricing and other benchmark sources.

View source ↗

Output speed

461

tokens / second

TTFT

6.86s

BenchLM measured

Collected 11/11/2026

Quality Score

84.0

Overall (0–100)

Speed

160 c/s

characters/second

Latency (TTFT)

0.29s

to first token

Input Price

$0.3

per 1M tokens

Output Price

$2.5

per 1M tokens

Context Window

tokens

Release Date

2026-07-21

30-Day Rank History

📊 Benchmark Scores

Reported scores · % accuracy

What do these benchmarks test?

🎯

GPQA Diamond71.0%Below avg

Designed so that even PhD-level human experts average ~65–70%. A score above 80% signals near-expert scientific reasoning that goes far beyond memorisation.

🧠

MMLU87.5%Top tier

The classic academic breadth benchmark. Top frontier models now score above 85%, so it best distinguishes mid-tier from strong generalist models.

💻

HumanEval87.0%Solid

Measures whether a model writes functionally correct code — not just plausible-looking syntax. Strong scores (>85%) indicate reliable day-to-day coding assistance.

∑

MATH Benchmark90.0%Top tier

Tests multi-step mathematical reasoning under strict correctness. Even a 60% score requires strong chain-of-thought; top reasoning models now exceed 90%.