Discuss your migration
Menu

October 10 snapshot / five-model benchmark

Five configurations.
One workflow.

Compare actual outputs, errors, cost and response time on the same banking-support cases.

Public Banking77 benchmark. Plain prompt, no retrieval. These previously exposed cases support a descriptive comparison, not a fresh held-out assessment or production approval.

Measured · 500 primary cases + 30 separate challenge cases

Latest adaptive comparison

Identified workflow

Banking support intent classification

Current model

o4-mini / OpenAI route

Preferred eligible configuration

GLM-5.3-Flash

Under the declared weights, including the option to retain the incumbent.

83.27 / 100

Weighted preference score

Correctness 50% · end-to-end incumbent agreement 20% · cost 20% · p95 response time 10%. The score reflects these priorities; it is not statistical confidence.

The existing published assessment and its retrieved-Luna configuration remain separate. This example does not change a customer verdict, acceptance policy or rollout authorization.

01 / Primary cohort

The same 500 cases, side by side.

End-to-end consistency counts matching valid intent labels across all planned cases. Failed or unusable answers count against it; shared wrong answers can still match.

ConfigurationEnd-to-end consistencyCorrect labelsAll errorsUSD / 1,000p50p95Score / 100
o4-miniIncumbent100.0%500/500 matches75.8%379/500 correct121/500$1.7566500/500 charges known2.26 s5.92 s72.90
DeepSeek V4 FlashEvaluated candidate30.6%153/500 matches25.6%128/500 correct372/500Unknown177/500 charges known0.16 s15.72 sUnranked
Qwen3.7-FlashEvaluated candidate84.2%421/500 matches73.6%368/500 correct132/500Unknown491/500 charges known4.04 s13.19 sUnranked
Nemotron 3.5 LightningEvaluated candidate82.2%411/500 matches74.6%373/500 correct127/500$0.2020500/500 charges known3.22 s5.28 sUnranked
GLM-5.3-FlashPreferred eligible configuration86.0%430/500 matches79.6%398/500 correct102/500$0.0274500/500 charges known1.31 s3.08 s83.27

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally to inspect every metric. Costs normalize actual primary charges to 1,000 requests; they are not a measured scaled workload.

Agreement and answer coverage.

Valid-answer agreement isolates cases where both models returned a valid label. Read it alongside valid-output coverage: excluding failed answers can make agreement look stronger.

ConfigurationEnd-to-end consistencyValid-answer agreementValid-output rate
o4-mini100.0%500/500 planned cases100.0%500/500 both-valid pairs100.0%500/500 planned cases
DeepSeek V4 Flash30.6%153/500 planned cases86.4%153/177 both-valid pairs35.4%177/500 planned cases
Qwen3.7-Flash84.2%421/500 planned cases86.1%421/489 both-valid pairs97.8%489/500 planned cases
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning82.2%411/500 planned cases83.7%411/491 both-valid pairs98.2%491/500 planned cases
GLM-5.3-Flash86.0%430/500 planned cases86.0%430/500 both-valid pairs100.0%500/500 planned cases

A valid output contains an accepted intent label; it may still be wrong. This breakdown is derived from the recorded counts; the original PDF and CSV remain unchanged. Conditional agreement and output coverage do not replace end-to-end agreement in the frozen weighted score or change eligibility.

Why some configurations are unranked
  • o4-mini: Complete evidence and no more primary errors than the incumbent.
  • DeepSeek V4 Flash: Some primary attempt charges are unknown. Full-run billing is incomplete. More primary errors than the incumbent.
  • Qwen3.7-Flash: Some primary attempt charges are unknown. Full-run billing is incomplete. More primary errors than the incumbent.
  • Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: More primary errors than the incumbent.
  • GLM-5.3-Flash: Complete evidence and no more primary errors than the incumbent.

Eligibility checks all 530 planned cases for outcomes, known attempt charges, timing and model identity. Missing evidence never redistributes the weights or turns an unknown charge into zero.

02 / Incumbent and candidate issues

Where the outputs differ.

Wrong labels are separate from service and output failures. Corrections and regressions below use pairs with valid labels.

ConfigurationWrong labelsProvider / unusable responseInvalid outputCorrectionsRegressionsShared wrong label
o4-mini1210000121
DeepSeek V4 Flash49323081133
Qwen3.7-Flash12192242577
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning11827242362
GLM-5.3-Flash10200331465

All planned attempts are accounted for. No missing or unresolved outcomes and no wrong-model responses remain in this collection. Unknown billing for explicit provider rejections is still retained. A provider/unusable-response count can include a billed unusable response; it does not always mean a rate limit.

03 / Separate diagnostic cohort

The 30 challenge cases.

These cases do not enter the primary denominator or weighted scores.

ConfigurationEnd-to-end consistencyValid-answer agreementValid-output rateCorrect labelsAll errors
o4-mini100.0%30/30 planned cases100.0%30/30 both-valid pairs100.0%30/30 planned cases25/30 (83.3%)5/30
DeepSeek V4 Flash30.0%9/30 planned cases90.0%9/10 both-valid pairs33.3%10/30 planned cases8/30 (26.7%)22/30
Qwen3.7-Flash93.3%28/30 planned cases93.3%28/30 both-valid pairs100.0%30/30 planned cases25/30 (83.3%)5/30
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning90.0%27/30 planned cases90.0%27/30 both-valid pairs100.0%30/30 planned cases24/30 (80.0%)6/30
GLM-5.3-Flash86.7%26/30 planned cases86.7%26/30 both-valid pairs100.0%30/30 planned cases24/30 (80.0%)6/30

GLM recorded 24/30 correct challenge labels; the incumbent recorded 25/30. Its primary-cohort recommendation is not a claim that it wins on every case or cohort.

04 / Declared priorities

How the recommendation is weighted.

ProfileCorrectnessAgreementCostp95 timePreferred eligible model
Default50%20%20%10%GLM-5.3-Flash
Quality priority70%10%10%10%GLM-5.3-Flash
Cost priority50%10%30%10%GLM-5.3-Flash
Latency priority50%10%10%30%GLM-5.3-Flash

Cost and time utilities are incumbent / (incumbent + candidate). Equal values score 0.5; both-zero utility is also 0.5. The frozen scores and winner lists are displayed as recorded, with ties retained.

05 / Method and provenance

Exact settings. Visible limits.

All arms used the same original intent prompt, no retrieval and a 2,048-token output cap. Requests were serial with rotating model order and no retries. The 2,650 attempts span 3 preserved collection segments. Percentiles use linear interpolation.

Publisher labels are unchanged, not customer adjudication. The cases were previously exposed, so these numbers do not establish fresh held-out confirmation, customer-traffic performance or production savings. Provider route and reasoning settings are part of each tested configuration.

Known reported charges across the full run total $1.0938. A further $0.2685 is reserved for uncertain charges. The reserve is a budget allowance, not a measured bill; the reported subtotal is not a final invoice total.

Exact model IDProvider routeReasoning
openai/o4-miniopenaiEnabled
deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731deepinfra/fp8Low effort
qwen/qwen3.7-flashalibaba/us-east-11,024 reasoning tokens
nvidia/nemotron-3.5-lightningdeepinfra/bf16Enabled
z-ai/glm-5.3-flashz-ai/fp8Low effort
Inspect source identity and collection windows

Source summary SHA-256: 7687c9fbec7063ae1835e8d44ff9611e51f3bc882d315325c917ca6bc3e54f5e

Prepared October 10, 2026 UTC. The PDF, CSV and curated JSON are the audited October 10 snapshot.

  • parent: to . First collection segment.
  • continuation: to . Prior pause 653.77 seconds.
  • second continuation: to . Prior pause 248.70 seconds.
Download file checksums

Earlier research sample (PDF)