📡 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 (16 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: 48

latency: 0.85

contextWindow: 524288

inputPrice: 1

outputPrice: 4.05

benchmarkMmlu: 82

benchmarkHumanEval: 82

benchmarkMath: 90

benchmarkGpqa: 64

reasoningScore: 77

codingScore: 82

aaIntelligenceIndex: 26

aaCostPerTask: 0.61

aaOutputSpeed: 76

aaLatency: 2.7

aaEndToEndTime: 35.51

Thinking Machines: Inkling

thinkingmachines🔒 Proprietary

LLM Stats Scores

77.0

Reasoning

82.0

Coding

🎯

64.0%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 ↗

31.9%

Humanity's Last Exam

Artificial Analysis measurements

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

Intelligence

AA Index

Cost / task

$0.61

AA measured

Output speed

tokens / second

TTFT

2.70s

AA measured

Response time

35.51s

end to end

Quality Score

80.0

Overall (0–100)

Speed

48 c/s

characters/second

Latency (TTFT)

0.85s

to first token

Input Price

per 1M tokens

Output Price

$4.05

per 1M tokens

Context Window

524K

tokens

Release Date

2026-07-17

30-Day Rank History

📊 Benchmark Scores

Reported scores · % accuracy

What do these benchmarks test?

🎯

GPQA Diamond64.0%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.

🧠

MMLU82.0%Solid

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

💻

HumanEval82.0%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%.