GPT-6.1 Terra added
The newest model in the AIM LLM Index is GPT-6.1 Terra.
AIM LLM Index
v1.10One transparent index combining 5 public benchmarks with AIMultiple's 4 agentic, RAG and enterprise-reasoning evaluations. See AIM LLM Index Methodology for further details.
TOP MODEL
Claude Opus 5.5
Index 78
BEST VALUE
GPT-6.1 Terra
$2.00 / 1M
FASTEST MODEL
Muse Spark Open
0.31s TTFT
Cost per Task vs Score
Average cost of one task across benchmarks, against the LLM Index
*Each model's cost per task averaged with equal weight over 7 benchmarks (all but MMMU-Pro, which covers too few models). Only models with a cost on every one of them are shown. ~ marks an average that includes an estimated cost.
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 Anthropic | 78 | 90 | 94 | 92 | 88 | 32 | 95 | 88 | 67 | 60 |
| 2 |  GPT-6 Astra OpenAI | 74 | 84 | 98 | 87 | 66 | 32 | 98 | 87 | 56 | 60 |
| 3 | GPT-6.1 Sol OpenAI | 74 | 81 | 98 | 90 | 65 | 32 | 100 | 86 | 56 | 56 |
| 4 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic | 74 | 85 | 93 | 89 | 74 | 31 | 80 | 86 | 61 | 64 |
| 5 | Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic | 74 | 84 | 98 | 90 | 67 | 31 | 88 | 86 | 63 | 55 |
| 6 |  Gemini 4 Argon Google | 73 | 94 | 98 | 91 | 79 | 27 | 78 | - | 62 | 57 |
| 7 | GPT-6.1 Terra OpenAI | 71 | 84 | 95 | 87 | 57 | 28 | 93 | 85 | 55 | 56 |
| 8 |  Muse Wonder Meta | 70 | 86 | 95 | 92 | 56 | 28 | 71 | 85 | 60 | 52 |
| 9 | GPT-6 Sol OpenAI | 70 | 82 | 96 | 89 | 54 | 31 | 90 | 83 | 58 | 44 |
| 10 |  Kimi K3.1 Pro Moonshot AI | 69 | 85 | 91 | 90 | 52 | 25 | - | 84 | 61 | 67 |
Page 1 of 3
Cost$8.00
Latency3.15s
Context1M
TTFT3.15s
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
Latency3.90s
Context1M
TTFT3.90s
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
Latency3.50s
Context1M
TTFT3.50s
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
Latency1.27s
Context1M
TTFT1.27s
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
Latency3.33s
Context1M
TTFT3.33s
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
Latency4.98s
Context1M
TTFT4.98s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
94
AIM-AI-Bias
98
AIM-FinanceReasoning
91
AIM-Text-to-SQL
79
CritPt
27
FrontierMath
78
SciCode
62
Terminal-Bench 4.0
57
Cost$2.00
Latency2.02s
Context1M
TTFT2.02s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
84
AIM-AI-Bias
95
AIM-FinanceReasoning
87
AIM-Text-to-SQL
57
CritPt
28
FrontierMath
93
MMMU-Pro
85
SciCode
55
Terminal-Bench 4.0
56
Cost$8.00
Latency35.22s
Context1M
TTFT35.22s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
86
AIM-AI-Bias
95
AIM-FinanceReasoning
92
AIM-Text-to-SQL
56
CritPt
28
FrontierMath
71
MMMU-Pro
85
SciCode
60
Terminal-Bench 4.0
52
Cost$4.00
Latency2.46s
Context1M
TTFT2.46s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
82
AIM-AI-Bias
96
AIM-FinanceReasoning
89
AIM-Text-to-SQL
54
CritPt
31
FrontierMath
90
MMMU-Pro
83
SciCode
58
Terminal-Bench 4.0
44
Cost$4.00
Latency49.60s
Context1M
TTFT49.60s
AIM-Agentic-RAG
85
AIM-AI-Bias
91
AIM-FinanceReasoning
90
AIM-Text-to-SQL
52
CritPt
25
MMMU-Pro
84
SciCode
61
Terminal-Bench 4.0
67
Page 1 of 3
Frontier Over Time
LLM Index by model release date
Model × Benchmark
Top models on selected benchmarks
Cost vs Performance
Blended cost against LLM Index
AIM LLM Index Methodology
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. MMMU-Pro results come from 2 separate sources.
Benchmarks We Used
AIMultiple
AIM-Agentic-RAGMulti-database routing & SQL query generation across 11 databases (BIRD-SQL, 759 questions).AIMultiple
AIM-AI-BiasMultiple-choice bias evaluation: 64 questions across 12 bias categories, each asked 5 times in two runs (v1 and v2), across 109 models. The score is the share of answers that pick the unbiased option, averaged over the two runs.AIMultiple
AIM-FinanceReasoningComplex multi-step financial reasoning across 238 hard FinanceReasoning questions.AIMultiple
AIM-Text-to-SQLNatural-language-to-SQL query generation accuracy across 35+ LLMs.Public
CritPtResearch-level physics problems requiring multi-step derivation.Public
FrontierMathUnpublished, expert-authored research math problems (Tiers 1–4).Public
MMMU-ProCollege-level multimodal understanding across disciplines, hardened against text-only shortcuts.Public
SciCodeResearch-level scientific coding across physics, math, biology & chemistry (338 subproblems)Public
Terminal-Bench 4.0The current Terminal-Bench generation: agentic terminal tasks scored by resolution rate.Download all data
Raw results of 73.9 thousand data points from the AIMultiple benchmarks this index is built from. Download them as a ZIP file containing 4 CSV files and a README.
Last updated: October 30, 2026
DownloadWant the granular data behind it? Join Premium
Changelog
62 updates- v1.10
2 models entered the AIM LLM Index: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Muse Spark Open.
- v1.10
Added 113 models to the dataset: Claude 3 Haiku, Claude Opus 4.7 (max), Command A, DeepSeek R1 (Jan), DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B and 108 more.
- v1.10
Added Qwen3.6 35B A3B to the dataset.
- v1.10
3 models entered the AIM LLM Index: GPT-6.1 Terra, Kimi K3.1 Pro, MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
- v1.10
Added 3 models to the dataset: GPT-6.1 Terra, Kimi K3.1 Pro, MiniMax M3.1 Flash.
- v1.10
Added 2 models to the dataset: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Muse Spark Open.
- v1.10
Muse Wonder entered the AIM LLM Index.
- v1.10
Added Muse Wonder to the dataset.
- v1.10
Gemini 4 Argon entered the AIM LLM Index.
- v1.10
Added Gemini 4 Argon to the dataset.
LLM Release TimelineThe pace of AI innovation
AI Labs
Gemini 3.8 Flash Lite TTS +1 moreGemini 3.8 Flash Lite TTSGemini 3.8 Flash TTS
23 SepGemini 3.5 Transcribe
25 SepNano Banana 2.1
06 OctGemini 4 Argon
13 OctGemini Omni 1.1 Flash
04 NovGemini Omni 1.2 Flash
05 NovGPT Image 2.5 Flare +1 moreGPT Image 2.5 FlareGPT Image 2.5 Sunburst
09 SepGPT-6 Luna +1 moreGPT-6 LunaGPT-6 Sol
22 SepGPT-6.1 Sol
29 SepGPT-6 Luna Decisions
06 OctGPT-6.1 Terra
26 OctGPT Image 2.6 Flare +1 moreGPT Image 2.6 FlareGPT Image 2.6 Sunburst
04 Nov
GLM 5.3 FlashX
18 SepGLM 5.3 Prime
23 SepGLM 5.3 FlashX Legal
02 NovKimi K3.1 Pro
23 Oct
MiniMax M3.1 Flash
19 Oct
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
10 SepDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
17 Oct
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash
21 SepQwen3.8 Max Prime
23 SepQwen Image 2.1 Pro +1 moreQwen Image 2.1 ProQwen Image 2.1 Turbo
16 OctMuse Voice Transcribe 1.0
11 SepMuse Wonder
12 OctMuse Spark Open
15 Oct
Solar Mini 4
23 SepSolar Decide
28 SepSolar Decide Flash
08 OctClaude Opus 5.5
22 SepClaude Sonnet 5.5
28 SepClaude Haiku 5.5
07 Oct
Grok 4.7
21 SepGrok Imagine Video 1.5 Lite
06 Oct
MiMo-V2.6-Flash +2 moreMiMo-V2.6-FlashMiMo-V2.6-ProMiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
21 SepExplore LLM Use Cases, Analyses & Benchmarks
AI Gateways for OpenAI: OpenRouter Alternatives
LLMBenchmarkNov 7We benchmarked OpenRouter, SambaNova, TogetherAI, Groq, and AI/ML API across three indicators (first-token latency, total latency, and output-token count), with 300 tests using short prompts (approx. 18 tokens) and long prompts (approx. 203 tokens) for total latency. If you plan to use one of these AI gateways, you can: In this benchmark, we compared OpenRouter,…
- LLMFeature ComparisonNov 5
LLM Pricing: Top 15+ Providers Compared
We track the launch prices of more than 160 LLMs, from GPT-3.5 Turbo in March 2023 to the latest releases, grouped by size class. We also compare current models’ API prices with their benchmark results and review the subscription plans of the major providers. Prices are per million tokens, blended three parts input to one…
- LLMInsightNov 5
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%.…
- LLMBenchmarkNov 5
LLM Latency Benchmark by Use Cases
You can find details on how we measured latency here. We report reasoning and non-reasoning models separately. Reasoning models spend several seconds thinking before the first visible answer, so comparing them directly with non-reasoning models on latency would be misleading. Some models also change behavior by task: GPT-5.2 answers Q&A without reasoning but reasons on…
- LLMFeature ComparisonNov 3
Compare 9 Large Language Models in Healthcare
We benchmarked 9 LLMs using the MedQA dataset, a graduate-level clinical exam benchmark derived from USMLE questions. Each model answered the same multiple-choice clinical scenarios using a standardized prompt, enabling direct comparison of accuracy. We also recorded latency per question by dividing total runtime by the number of MedQA items completed. Benchmark methodology: This benchmark…
- LLMBenchmarkNov 3
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…
- LLMBenchmarkNov 3
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…
- LLMInsightNov 2
LLM Parameters: Types, Scaling, Fine-Tuning Guide
Parameter count is one of the most cited specifications of a large language model, but it does not determine how well a model performs or how much it costs to run. The chart below compares 31 models by their LLM Index score and their average cost per task across seven benchmarks. Four models form the…
Filters