Premium
Services
Premium

AIM LLM Index

One transparent index combining public benchmarks with AIMultiple's own agentic, RAG and enterprise-reasoning evaluations. How the Index Is Built

TOP MODEL
Claude Opus 5.5
Index 78
Best value
GPT-6.1 Sol
$4.00 / 1M
Fastest
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
0.34s TTFT
AIM LLM Index

Leaderboard

The highest-scoring models across all benchmarks.

Filter & Sort
#
Model
Index
AIM-Agentic-RAG
AIM-AI-Bias
AIM-FinanceReasoning
AIM-Text-to-SQL
CritPt
FrontierMath
MMMU-Pro
SciCode
Terminal-Bench 4.0
1
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic
78
909492883295886760
2
GPT-6 Astra
GPT-6 Astra
OpenAI
74
849887663298875660
3
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol
OpenAI
74
8198906532100865656
4
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Anthropic
74
859389743180866164
5
Claude Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
74
849890673188866355
6
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon
Google
70
94-91792778-6257
7
GPT-6 Sol
GPT-6 Sol
OpenAI
70
829789543190835844
8
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
68
858190642973845649
9
Muse Wonder
Muse Wonder
Meta
64
86-92562871-6052
10
Muse Spark 1.3
Muse Spark 1.3
Meta
62
779589492646826033
Page 1 of 4

Cost$8.00
Latency1.84s
Context1M
TTFT1.84s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
90
AIM-AI-Bias
94
AIM-FinanceReasoning
92
AIM-Text-to-SQL
88
CritPt
32
FrontierMath
95
MMMU-Pro
88
SciCode
67
Terminal-Bench 4.0
60

Cost$20.00
Latency6.73s
Context1M
TTFT6.73s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
84
AIM-AI-Bias
98
AIM-FinanceReasoning
87
AIM-Text-to-SQL
66
CritPt
32
FrontierMath
98
MMMU-Pro
87
SciCode
56
Terminal-Bench 4.0
60

Cost$4.00
Latency3.29s
Context1M
TTFT3.29s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
81
AIM-AI-Bias
98
AIM-FinanceReasoning
90
AIM-Text-to-SQL
65
CritPt
32
FrontierMath
100
MMMU-Pro
86
SciCode
56
Terminal-Bench 4.0
56

Cost$4.00
Latency1.25s
Context1M
TTFT1.25s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
85
AIM-AI-Bias
93
AIM-FinanceReasoning
89
AIM-Text-to-SQL
74
CritPt
31
FrontierMath
80
MMMU-Pro
86
SciCode
61
Terminal-Bench 4.0
64

Cost$20.00
Latency2.12s
Context1M
TTFT2.12s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
84
AIM-AI-Bias
98
AIM-FinanceReasoning
90
AIM-Text-to-SQL
67
CritPt
31
FrontierMath
88
MMMU-Pro
86
SciCode
63
Terminal-Bench 4.0
55

Cost$4.00
Latency4.28s
Context1M
TTFT4.28s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
94
AIM-FinanceReasoning
91
AIM-Text-to-SQL
79
CritPt
27
FrontierMath
78
SciCode
62
Terminal-Bench 4.0
57

Cost$4.00
Latency3.30s
Context1M
TTFT3.30s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
82
AIM-AI-Bias
97
AIM-FinanceReasoning
89
AIM-Text-to-SQL
54
CritPt
31
FrontierMath
90
MMMU-Pro
83
SciCode
58
Terminal-Bench 4.0
44

Cost$10.00
Latency1.93s
Context1M
TTFT1.93s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
85
AIM-AI-Bias
81
AIM-FinanceReasoning
90
AIM-Text-to-SQL
64
CritPt
29
FrontierMath
73
MMMU-Pro
84
SciCode
56
Terminal-Bench 4.0
49

Cost$8.00
Latency50.93s
Context1M
TTFT50.93s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
86
AIM-FinanceReasoning
92
AIM-Text-to-SQL
56
CritPt
28
FrontierMath
71
SciCode
60
Terminal-Bench 4.0
52

Cost$2.00
Latency68.37s
Context1M
TTFT68.37s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
77
AIM-AI-Bias
95
AIM-FinanceReasoning
89
AIM-Text-to-SQL
49
CritPt
26
FrontierMath
46
MMMU-Pro
82
SciCode
60
Terminal-Bench 4.0
33
Page 1 of 4
Frontier Over Time
LLM Index by model release date
Cost vs Performance
Blended cost against LLM Index
Model × Benchmark
Top models on selected benchmarks

How the Index Is Built

A model's index score is the average of its results across the benchmarks below. Scores already on a 0-100 scale are used as-is; others are rescaled to 0-100. A model missing a benchmark has it excluded rather than scored as zero, and every benchmark carries equal weight. A model needs to be scored in at least 2 AIMultiple benchmarks to be ranked.

Benchmarks We Used

Recent Updates

Latest changes to the AIM LLM Index, model coverage and AIMultiple benchmark methodology.

Google

Gemini 4 Argon

New model added to the AIM LLM Index.

Meta

Muse Wonder

New model added to the AIM LLM Index.

Anthropic

Claude Haiku 5.5

New model added to the AIM LLM Index.

OpenAI

GPT-6.1 Sol

New model added to the AIM LLM Index.

LLM Release TimelineThe pace of AI innovation
AI Labs
DeepSeek
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
21 Aug
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
10 Sep
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
17 Oct
Meta
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
21 Aug
Muse Spark 1.3 +1 moreMuse Spark 1.3Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor
02 Sep
Muse Wonder
12 Oct
Muse Spark Open
15 Oct
Google
Google
Gemini 3.8 Flash
02 Sep
Nano Banana 2.1
06 Oct
Gemini 4 Argon
13 Oct
Anthropic
Anthropic
Claude Fable 5.1
01 Sep
Claude Opus 5.5
22 Sep
Claude Sonnet 5.5
28 Sep
Claude Haiku 5.5
07 Oct
OpenAI
OpenAI
GPT-6 Astra
04 Sep
GPT-6 Luna +1 moreGPT-6 LunaGPT-6 Sol
22 Sep
GPT-6.1 Sol
29 Sep
Upstage
Upstage
Solar Mini 4
23 Sep
Solar Decide
28 Sep
Alibaba Cloud
Alibaba Cloud
Qwen3.8 Flash
26 Aug
Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
03 Sep
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash
21 Sep
Qwen3.8 Max Prime
23 Sep
Z AI
Z AI
GLM 5.3 Flash
26 Aug
GLM 5.3 FlashX
18 Sep
GLM 5.3 Prime
23 Sep
X
X
Grok 4.7
21 Sep
Xiaomi
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash +2 moreMiMo-V2.6-FlashMiMo-V2.6-ProMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
21 Sep

Explore LLM Use Cases, Analyses & Benchmarks

LLM Orchestration: 22 Frameworks and Gateways

LLM
Open World Evaluation
Oct 19

Optimizing LLM orchestration is key to improving performance while keeping resource use under control. To evaluate how different orchestration approaches perform in practice, we benchmarked: Discover selected LLM orchestration tools, including developer frameworks and enterprise gateways: LLM Orchestration involves managing and integrating multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform complex tasks efficiently. It ensures smooth…

Read More
LLM
Benchmark
Oct 15

Compare Multimodal AI Models on Visual Reasoning

We benchmarked 40 leading multimodal AI models on visual reasoning using 200 visual-based questions. The evaluation consisted of two tracks: 100 chart understanding questions testing data visualization interpretation, and 100 visual logic questions assessing pattern recognition and spatial reasoning. See our benchmark methodology to learn our testing procedures. Every model scores lower on visual logic…

LLM
Insight
Oct 15

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) vs LLMs

Evaluate LLMs and LMMs by comparing their benchmark scores and real-world latency by clicking the model’s name in the table below. You can also weigh their input and output pricing to judge overall efficiency and value. *Audio is native on the E2B, E4B and 12B models only. Available in five sizes: E2B, E4B, 12B, 26B…

LLM
Insight
Oct 14

10+ Large Language Model Examples

We have gathered open-source benchmarks to compare leading proprietary and open-source large language models. Choose your use case to find the right model. You can evaluate large language models by examining their benchmark performance and real-world latency (available by clicking each model’s name in the table), and by reviewing their pricing to assess overall efficiency…

LLM
Feature Comparison
Oct 14

Top LLMOps Tools & Compare them to MLOPs

LLMOps platforms handle the operational side of running large language models: deployment, monitoring, evaluation, and cost management. We examined top LLMOps tools, their core features, pricing models, and how they differ from each other to help identify the best fit for various use cases. A breakdown of each metric is provided below: LLMOps platforms support…

LLM
Benchmark
Oct 14

AIM-Text-to-SQL Benchmark: SQL Accuracy Across 70+ LLMs

SQL accuracy is the percentage of scored queries that return the reference result. Incorrect routes and references flagged as broken are excluded. A reference query is the SQL supplied as the expected answer. Each model reaches a different set of SQL questions because scoring depends on its database choices. Differences in these subsets and execution…

LLM
Benchmark
Oct 14

Benchmark of 90+ LLMs in Finance: Claude Opus 5.5 & Gemini 4 Argon

The test set is the hard subset of the FinanceReasoning benchmark (Tang et al.), with 238 questions. Accuracy is the percentage of questions answered correctly. Numerical answers receive a 0.2% relative tolerance. Output tokens are the tokens generated across the 238 answers. Input tokens are counted separately in the cost calculation. Cost is the calculated…

LLM
Insight
Oct 14

Compare GPT-5 Models: Reasoning, Speed & Cost

We explore the differences between OpenAI’s GPT-5 family (e.g., GPT-5, GPT-5-mini, and GPT-5-nano) by gathering benchmark performance and the costs to run the benchmarks. We used the GPT-5 family in our analysis. We used six benchmarks across various areas, including reasoning, coding, instruction-following, and math. Our analysis revealed: The three models differ primarily in reasoning…

LLM
Insight
Oct 13

LLM Market Share: Compare Usage & Adoption

We analyzed LLM market share by combining usage-based data and web visit estimates to show how demand for large language models is distributed across AI labs and AI applications. Read the methodology to see how we measured and calculated these results. The United States dominated web visits across all four months, consistently accounting for 90–95%.…

LLM
Insight
Oct 13

The Future of Large Language Models

See the future of large language models by comparing approaches, such as self-training, fact-checking, and sparse expertise, that could address LLM limitations. LLMs access external sources during conversations instead of relying on training data. The model queries external databases, retrieves current information, and provides citations. Limitation: Still makes errors. Citations don’t guarantee accuracy; models sometimes…

LLM
Feature Comparison
Oct 13

Cloud LLM vs Local LLMs: Examples & Benefits

Cloud LLMs, powered by advanced models like GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7, offer scalability and accessibility. Conversely, Local LLMs, driven by open-source models such as Llama 4, DeepSeek V4, and Qwen3.6-Plus, ensure stronger privacy and customization. Explore what are cloud LLMs, strengths and weaknesses, most common case studies with real-life examples, and how they differ…