📡 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 (15 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: 0.28

contextWindow: 262144

inputPrice: 0.042

outputPrice: 0.1232

benchmarkMmlu: 68

benchmarkHumanEval: 68

benchmarkMath: 64

benchmarkGpqa: 50

reasoningScore: 57

codingScore: 68

aaIntelligenceIndex: 23

aaOutputSpeed: 345

aaLatency: 1.93

aaEndToEndTime: 9.17

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

inclusionai🔒 Proprietary

LLM Stats Scores

57.0

Reasoning

68.0

Coding

🎯

50.0%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 ↗

22.6%

Humanity's Last Exam

Artificial Analysis measurements

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

View source ↗

Intelligence

AA Index

Output speed

345

tokens / second

TTFT

1.93s

AA measured

Response time

9.17s

end to end

Collected 10/27/2026

Quality Score

63.0

Overall (0–100)

Speed

160 c/s

characters/second

Latency (TTFT)

0.28s

to first token

Input Price

$0.042

per 1M tokens

Output Price

$0.1232

per 1M tokens

Context Window

262K

tokens

Release Date

2026-08-27

30-Day Rank History

📊 Benchmark Scores

Reported scores · % accuracy

What do these benchmarks test?

🎯

GPQA Diamond50.0%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.

🧠

MMLU68.0%Below avg

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

💻

HumanEval68.0%Below avg

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

∑

MATH Benchmark64.0%Solid

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