WORDS / EDITORIAL
For writing that sounds like you.
Long-form thinking, clean structure, and a better first draft when the blank page is the hardest part.
Best starting point for essays, briefs, and brand voice
MODEL INDEX
Which model is
best for your work?
The right model depends on the job. Start with writing, coding, agents, research, or creative work — then see the evidence behind the shortlist.
7public leaderboard sources
0–100consensus score scale
30models in the full ranking
THE CONSENSUS INDEX
Top models, in context.
Last checked Aug 21, 2026 at 20:00 UTC
Scores reflect relative performance across public model evaluations. Coverage and evidence confidence are shown alongside the score so a ranking never has to tell the whole story by itself.
| Rank | Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 |  Claude Fable 5Anthropic | 2026-06-09 | 88.0% | ¥67.21 | ¥336.03 | 89.4 Strong evidence |
| 02 | Claude Opus 5Anthropic | 2026-07-24 | 84.5% | ¥33.60 | ¥168.02 | 86.2 Strong evidence |
| 03 |  GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI | 2026-07-09 | 84.5% | ¥33.60 | ¥201.62 | 83.3 Strong evidence |
| 04 |  Kimi K3Moonshot AI | 2026-07-16 | 84.5% | ¥20.00 | ¥100.00 | 79.9 Strong evidence |
| 05 |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | 2026-08-18 | 60.0% | ¥9.41 | ¥29.57 | 76.9 Moderate evidence |
| 06 |  Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle | 2026-08-13 | 81.0% | ¥5.04 | ¥25.20 | 75.7 Strong evidence |
| 07 |  Grok 4.6xAI | 2026-08-12 | 84.5% | ¥13.44 | ¥40.32 | 74.8 Strong evidence |
| 08 | GPT-5.5OpenAI | 2026-04-23 | 80.0% | ¥33.60 | ¥201.62 | 73.9 Moderate evidence |
| 09 |  Muse Spark 1.2Meta | 2026-08-05 | 73.0% | ¥8.40 | ¥28.56 | 72.5 Moderate evidence |
| 10 |  Qwen3.8 MaxAlibaba | 2026-07-19 | 81.0% | ¥12.00 | ¥36.00 | 71.7 Strong evidence |
| 11 | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | 2026-05-28 | 88.0% | ¥33.60 | ¥168.02 | 70.6 Strong evidence |
| 12 | GPT-5.6 TerraOpenAI | 2026-07-09 | 81.0% | ¥13.44 | ¥80.65 | 69.3 Moderate evidence |
| 13 | Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic | 2026-04-16 | 72.0% | ¥33.60 | ¥168.02 | 64.1 Moderate evidence |
| 14 | Muse Spark 1.1Meta | 2026-07-09 | 76.5% | ¥8.40 | ¥28.56 | 61.2 Moderate evidence |
| 15 |  DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813DeepSeek | 2026-08-13 | 73.0% | ¥9.00 | ¥27.00 | 58.7 Moderate evidence |
| 16 | GPT-5.4OpenAI | 2026-03-05 | 69.5% | ¥16.80 | ¥100.81 | 57.1 Moderate evidence |
| 17 | Grok 4.5xAI | 2026-07-08 | 88.0% | ¥13.44 | ¥40.32 | 56.4 Strong evidence |
| 18 | Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic | 2026-06-30 | 84.5% | ¥13.44 | ¥67.21 | 55.7 Strong evidence |
| 19 | GPT-5.6 LunaOpenAI | 2026-07-09 | 81.0% | ¥1.34 | ¥8.06 | 51.9 Moderate evidence |
| 20 | Gemini 3.6 FlashGoogle | 2026-07-21 | 81.0% | ¥5.04 | ¥25.20 | 49.9 Moderate evidence |
| 21 | Qwen3.8 27BAlibaba | 2026-08-14 | 51.0% | ¥3.00 | ¥12.00 | 47.9 Limited evidence |
| 22 | Gemini 3.5 FlashGoogle | 2026-05-19 | 81.0% | ¥10.08 | ¥60.49 | 47.6 Strong evidence |
| 23 | GLM-5.2Z.ai | 2026-06-16 | 84.5% | ¥8.00 | ¥28.00 | 46.8 Strong evidence |
| 24 | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | 2026-02-05 | 73.0% | ¥33.60 | ¥168.02 | 46.1 Moderate evidence |
| 25 | DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731DeepSeek | 2026-07-31 | 76.5% | ¥3.00 | ¥9.00 | 42.9 Moderate evidence |
| 26 | Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGoogle | 2026-02-19 | 88.0% | ¥13.44 | ¥80.65 | 41.1 Strong evidence |
| 27 | Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | 2026-02-17 | 76.5% | ¥20.16 | ¥100.81 | 37.4 Moderate evidence |
| 28 | Qwen3.7 MaxAlibaba | 2026-05-19 | 51.0% | ¥12.00 | ¥36.00 | 34.3 Limited evidence |
| 29 | GPT-5.3 CodexOpenAI | 2026-02-05 | 42.0% | ¥11.76 | ¥94.09 | 32.2 Limited evidence |
| 30 | DeepSeek V4 Pro PreviewDeepSeek | 2026-04-24 | 73.0% | ¥2.92 | ¥5.85 | 31.8 Moderate evidence |
Benchmark results link directly to the original public evaluation boards. Provider pricing is checked against official websites and converted to CNY where necessary.
START WITH THE WORK
Which model is best
for your work?
There is no universal winner. Pick the job first, then compare the models that make sense for that job.
CODE / SHIP
For turning intent into software.
A shortlist for debugging, refactors, code review, and the long middle between “it should work” and production.
Best starting point for building and shipping
DOCS / SLIDES
For ideas people can use.
Turn rough thinking into clear briefs, polished presentations, and documents that are easier to scan and act on.
Best starting point for docs, decks, and communication
AGENTS / WORKFLOWS
For work that keeps moving.
Models that make a useful core for tool calls, multi-step plans, research loops, and background execution.
Best starting point for tool-using systems
RESEARCH / THINK
For questions with a rabbit hole.
A practical starting set for synthesis, comparison, source-heavy analysis, and making sense of too much information.
Best starting point for analysis and synthesis
VIDEO / VISUALS
For ideas that want to move.
Video-specific evaluations are the next lane for this index. For now, start here for storyboards, shot lists, visual direction, and creative prompts.
Creative direction shortlist · video leaderboard next
Editorial starting points based on the current AI Center snapshot — not a replacement for the full evidence table.
READ THE SIGNAL
Three numbers worth understanding.
Consensus score
Each model is placed on a shared capability scale using real head-to-head results across the evaluation set. The final score is mapped from 0 to 100.
Shared results → estimated ability → anchored score
Evaluation coverage
Coverage shows how much evidence a model has actually earned. Missing evaluations are not treated as zeroes, and missing source weight is never redistributed.
More coverage = more confidence in the placement
Evidence confidence
High, medium, and low confidence describe how complete and stable the evidence is. They do not describe the model’s quality.
High Medium Low
A TRANSPARENT METHOD
Rankings are useful.
Context makes them honest.
AI Center’s model index is designed for decisions, not hot takes. A model can lead with less evidence, and a narrow score gap does not automatically mean a meaningful capability gap.
Read the methodology01Normalize model identities↗
02Compare only shared evaluations↗
03Estimate latent capability↗
04Anchor the score and show uncertainty↗