Evidence for this exact version
The results apply to the exact model ID above. Newer versions need their own evaluation. Scores with different grading scales are kept separate, and a model result alone does not evaluate a complete trading agent.
The provider name identifies the model family. The tools and harness around the model determine what it can do.
Use these results to choose a test
Start with the study closest to your task. Compare this version with the other models in that study using the same rubric and cost units. A strong result on planning does not establish stock-screening or coding quality.
Before adopting a version, try representative inputs in your own harness. Check failure cases and valid outputs alongside score, elapsed time and billed cost. The tables below describe the published runs; they are not current price quotes or live-return forecasts.
Planning models on 29 frozen conversations
GLM 5.2 recorded 0.515 for score in the 2026-08-08 publication. 16-model campaign, 29 frozen conversations; 14 model rows shown in the public table.
Study-wide context: GPT 5.6 Luna was the published cost-oriented selection among similar-quality planning candidates. Muse Spark 1.1 had the highest raw mean; those are different claims.
The public table omits two poolside arms for space. This snapshot contains the 14 published rows, not a reconstruction of their private outputs.
The top raw score is Muse Spark 1.1 at 0.759. GPT 5.6 Luna scored 0.731 at a reported $0.0012 per decision; the published selection favored cost among similar-quality candidates, rather than claiming the highest score.
The source reports a paired comparison with Opus as inconclusive. This page does not turn small raw gaps into a confident quality winner.
| Score | 0.515 |
| +/- SE | 0.079 |
| $ / decision | $0.0246 |
| p50 | 44.8s |
No matching rows. Clear the filter to see all records.
Next-action execution model bakeoff
GLM 5.2 recorded 82.4 for mean score in the 2026-08-08 publication. 23-model campaign; 69 frozen decisions × 3 samples; 12 published model rows.
Study-wide context: The published deployment decision selected GPT 5.6 Luna because it improved score, schema validity, billed cost and latency versus the old DeepSeek default. GPT 5.6 Luna Pro had a higher raw score and a substantially higher cost.
Only 12 of the 23 campaign arms are in the public table. The catalog does not fabricate the unpublished rows or their failure counts.
Cross-vendor regrading changed the reported gaps. In the source, Luna versus DeepSeek moved from a 13.9-point score gap to 1.5 points under another judge. Quality claims remain judge-dependent.
Reported costs benefited from reused prompt prefixes. The source did not retain the cached-token split. Historical billed cost is not a current API price quote.
| Mean score | 82.4 |
| Schema valid | 98.1% |
| $ / 1k decisions | $25.37 |
| Prod p50 | 15.7s |
No matching rows. Clear the filter to see all records.
Five models completing one sandbox research task
GLM 5.2 recorded D → D → B+ → D → D → D for grade trajectory in the 2026-08-08 publication. 5 models on the same single research task; real Modal virtual machines.
Study-wide context: Luna reached B+ three times and had the lowest reported completed-run wall time and cost. The oscillating grades and single-task sample remain material limitations.
This is one task, not a broad coding benchmark. A favorable result cannot be generalized to all trading research code.
The early remediation loop oscillated between grades. Later diagnoses found flaws in agent-written audit code; a successful execution status alone did not establish the correctness of delivered analysis.
Flash Lite failed out after 24 minutes and has no reported total cost in the table. Missing cost is not represented as zero.
| Grade trajectory | D → D → B+ → D → D → D |
| Wall | 91m |
| Cost | $2.72 |
No matching rows. Clear the filter to see all records.