โ† Back to AI Comparison

๐Ÿ“Š Methodology & Data Sources

How we test AI models and create transparent recommendations

๐Ÿ• Last Updated: May 29, 2025 | Next Update: June 15, 2025

๐ŸŽฏ Our Mission

We believe choosing the right AI model shouldn't be a guessing game. Our goal is to provide transparent, data-driven comparisons that help you make informed decisions based on real performance and honest pricing.

Independence Promise: We are not sponsored by any AI company. Our recommendations are based purely on performance data and value analysis. We may earn small commissions from affiliate links, but this never influences our rankings.
Advertisement

๐Ÿ“Š Performance Testing Methodology

Benchmark Sources

We aggregate performance data from multiple reputable sources to ensure accuracy:

๐Ÿงฎ HumanEval (Coding)

OpenAI's standard for measuring code generation accuracy. Tests ability to solve programming problems.

๐Ÿ“ MMLU (General Knowledge)

Massive Multitask Language Understanding benchmark covering 57 academic subjects.

๐ŸŽจ ImageNet (Visual)

Standard benchmark for image generation and visual understanding tasks.

๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ LibriSpeech (Audio)

Speech recognition accuracy testing on diverse audio samples.

Performance Score Calculation

Our performance scores are weighted averages based on:

  • Accuracy (40%) - Correctness of outputs on standardized tests
  • Speed (25%) - Response time and throughput measurements
  • Consistency (20%) - Reliability across multiple test runs
  • Real-world Performance (15%) - User experience factors
Performance Range Tier Classification Typical Use Cases
85-99/100 ๐Ÿ”ฅ Premium Tier Mission-critical applications, enterprise use
75-84/100 ๐Ÿ’ช Strong Tier Professional work, reliable daily use
65-74/100 โšก Solid Tier Standard tasks, good for most users
50-64/100 ๐Ÿ’ฐ Budget Tier Basic tasks, cost-sensitive applications

๐Ÿ’ฐ Pricing Data Collection

Sources

  • Official Pricing Pages - Direct from provider websites
  • API Documentation - Current rate limits and costs
  • Real Usage Testing - Actual costs from test accounts
  • Community Reports - Verified user experiences

Monthly Cost Calculations

Our "Monthly Cost" estimates are based on realistic usage scenarios:

  • Light Use: 10k tokens/month (~50 queries)
  • Moderate Use: 100k tokens/month (~500 queries)
  • Heavy Use: 1M+ tokens/month (~5000+ queries)
Pricing Updates: We update pricing data bi-weekly and immediately when providers announce changes. If you notice outdated pricing, please contact us.

๐Ÿ† Value Score Methodology

Our proprietary Value Score helps identify the best bang for your buck:

Value Score = (Performance Scoreยฒ ร— 1000) รท Monthly Cost

This formula rewards both high performance and low cost, with performance weighted more heavily to ensure quality isn't sacrificed for savings.

Value Badge System

  • ๐ŸŸข Excellent Value: Value Score > 1000
  • ๐Ÿ”ต Good Value: Value Score 500-1000
  • ๐ŸŸก Fair Value: Value Score 100-500
  • ๐Ÿ”ด Poor Value: Value Score < 100

๐Ÿ”„ Update Schedule

Regular Updates

  • Pricing: Every 2 weeks
  • Performance Scores: Monthly
  • New Models: Within 1 week of public release
  • Major Reviews: Quarterly comprehensive audits

Emergency Updates

We provide immediate updates for:

  • Significant pricing changes (>20%)
  • Model discontinuations or major updates
  • Security or reliability issues
Advertisement

โ“ Limitations & Disclaimers

What We Can't Control

  • Real-time Pricing: Costs may vary based on usage patterns, geographic location, and provider changes
  • Individual Results: Performance can vary based on specific use cases and prompting techniques
  • Model Availability: Some models may have waitlists or geographic restrictions

Recommendations

  • Always verify current pricing on provider websites before making decisions
  • Test models with your specific use case when possible
  • Consider factors beyond our metrics (API reliability, support, etc.)
Questions or Corrections? We welcome feedback on our methodology. Contact us if you notice inaccuracies or have suggestions for improvement.