A model for every idea

Explore AI models for research, writing, image editing and video generation. Compare measured performance and task costs to find a model for your work.

18 models

Research and writing

Claude Fable 5.1Entregue trechos de pesquisa, códigos, logs ou fluxogramas ao Claude Fable 5.1 para organizar evidências, analisar possíveis causas e decompor problemas complexos em planos acionáveis.
Claude Haiku 5.5Dê ao Claude Haiku 5.5 uma passagem, um conjunto de entradas curtas ou uma pergunta focada. Transforme o material em um resumo conciso, um conjunto útil de categorias ou uma lista de detalhes que você pode verificar contra a fonte.
Claude Opus 4.6Use Claude Opus 4.6 para examinar materiais substanciais, raciocinar sobre mudanças difíceis e moldar rascunhos com cuidado. Traga o contexto e o resultado desejado, depois refine o trabalho na conversa.
Claude Opus 5.5Transforme ideias e materiais de origem em trabalho utilizável. Desenvolva artigos, raciocine decisões, construa páginas web ou explore movimento no código, refinando os resultados na conversa.
Claude Sonnet 5.5Comece com um objetivo claro e o material por trás dele. Use o Claude Sonnet 5.5 para desenvolver um documento estruturado, discutir uma referência visual ou revisar um rascunho mantendo os fatos e a voz que você deseja preservar.
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashTransforme briefings preliminares, dúvidas de código ou anotações em rascunhos focados. Defina a tarefa, forneça contexto e solicite a próxima ação útil.
Gemini 3.8 FlashConecte o material-fonte a um próximo passo claro. Use o Gemini 3.8 Flash para explicar documentos, comparar detalhes em referências visuais ou transformar briefings amplos em rascunhos estruturados que você pode continuar refinando.
Gemini 4 ArgonUse o Gemini 4 Argon para decompor problemas matemáticos, projetar soluções de código ou ler textos técnicos longos. Combine gráficos e capturas de tela para esclarecer melhor os detalhes da sua questão.
GPT-6.1 SolEnvie requisitos de funcionalidade, alterações de código ou capturas de tela da interface para o GPT-6.1 Sol e obtenha os próximos passos claros para avançar. Explique lógicas complexas com base nos requisitos e crie planos de implementação, casos de teste ou documentação técnica.
GPT-6.1 TerraTraga uma imagem, um conjunto de anotações ou um rascunho inacabado. Use o GPT-6.1 Terra para explicar os detalhes importantes, organizar seu material e transformá-lo em uma escrita clara para o público desejado.
GPT-6 AstraTraga uma questão difícil, o material por trás dela e as restrições importantes. O GPT-6 Astra ajuda a conectar as evidências, pesar alternativas e transformar o resultado em um resumo claro que você pode continuar refinando.
Grok 4.7Use o Grok 4.7 para revisar código, explicar capturas de tela ou esclarecer uma solução técnica difícil de escolher. Reúna requisitos e materiais relacionados para transformar a discussão em listas de testes, planos de migração ou recomendações claras de decisão.

Create and edit images

Bring ideas into motion

Compare AI models

AI model research performance

Compare the factual accuracy of AI models when they research information and answer questions. Scores are out of 100; a higher score means more accurate answers on this set of tasks.

Factuality / 100
Model	Low	Medium	High
GPT-6.1 Sol	97.50	97.73	No complete result
GPT-6 Astra	95.76	98.59	99.55
GPT-6 Luna	97.90	100.00	99.32
Claude Opus 5.5	83.23	95.17	97.17
Claude Sonnet 5.5	91.46	96.18	97.40
Gemini 4 Argon	80.93	87.10	80.58
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	89.92	No complete result	95.95
Gemini 3.8 Flash	0.00	43.07	65.36

GPT-6 Astra scored 99.55 for factual accuracy in the completed high-effort research evaluations shown here.

AI model writing performance

Compare how well AI writing models complete content creation tasks and deliver the requested results. Scores are out of 100 and measure task completion rather than article quality.

Original scoring criteria

Model	Task fulfillment / 100
GPT-6.1 Sol	100.00
GPT-6 Astra	100.00
GPT-6 Luna	99.00
Claude Opus 5.5	99.00
Claude Sonnet 5.5	99.00
Gemini 4 Argon	99.00
Claude Haiku 5.5	96.00
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	95.00
Gemini 3.8 Flash	94.00
Claude Opus 4.6	93.00

Updated scoring criteria

Updated scoring criteria
Model	Low	Medium	High
GPT-6.1 Terra	99.72	100.00	100.00

AI model feature-use performance

Use tasks such as researching information, writing documents and creating slides to check whether AI models choose the right features and follow instructions. Scores measure feature use, not the quality of the finished articles, images or slides.

Writing
Research
Images
Slides
Webpages

Model	Feature-use score / 100Effort
Gemini 4 Argon	Low 92.00 Medium 92.00 High 92.00
GPT-6.1 Terra	Low 84.67 Medium 82.00 High 82.00
Claude Haiku 5.5	Medium 92.00
GPT-6.1 Sol	Low 92.00 Medium 87.00 High 87.00
GPT-6 Luna	High 100.00
Claude Sonnet 5.5	Medium 77.71
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	High 98.57
Gemini 3.8 Flash	Medium 92.00

Results with different scoring rules are shown in separate groups.

How to use

Choose your model
Choose an AI model for research, article writing or summarizing content. Switch between GPT, Claude, Gemini and other models in YouMind to explore different approaches.
Choose a model
Selected: GPT-6.1 Sol
Bring your context
Add PDFs, documents, images or notes, then describe your task. Ask AI to use your reference material to summarize key points, create an article outline or draft content.
Review and refine
Rewrite AI-generated text, refine the wording or select an image area for a local edit. Keep the parts you like and use specific instructions to refine the article or image.

Our Writing Sense analysis

Read the full evaluation

Compare AI writing results and task costs

Compare Writing Sense scores with average agent task costs from the published report.

EffortHighMediumLowAll

Writing Sense vs. custo

In the published report's high-effort configurations, Claude Opus 5.5 scored 90.28 for Writing Sense at an average cost of $0.6035 per task. Gemini 3.8 Flash scored 78.85 at $0.1393 per task.

Higher effort did not always produce a higher score on these tasks. GPT-6.1 Sol scored 80.26 for Writing Sense at medium effort and 77.20 at high effort.

View data table

Model	Effort	Writing Sense score / 100	Understanding the author's intent / 100	Following the author's intent in writing / 100	USD / task
Claude Opus 5.5	High	90.28	100.00	87.04	$0.6035
GPT-6 Astra	High	86.80	100.00	82.40	$1.7338
GPT-6.1 Sol	High	77.20	92.59	72.07	$0.4075
Gemini 4 Argon	High	81.72	100.00	75.63	$0.1955
Claude Sonnet 5.5	High	64.13	66.67	63.28	$0.2787
Claude Opus 4.6	High	63.11	77.78	58.22	$0.4546
Gemini 3.8 Flash	High	78.85	77.78	79.21	$0.1393
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	High	59.96	62.96	58.96	$0.0407
GPT-6 Luna	High	48.06	22.22	56.68	$0.0646
Claude Haiku 5.5	High	39.31	33.33	41.31	$0.0227
GPT-6.1 Terra	High	73.15	77.78	71.61	No comparable cost

Which AI models understand your source material?

Compare error rates and the choices behind them.

Over-cuttingPolished but wrongOther

Model	Reading error rate	Among wrong answers
	0.0%	No errors in this sample
	4.9%	Over-cutting: 25.0%Polished but wrong: 75.0%Other: 0.0%
	6.2%	Over-cutting: 80.0%Polished but wrong: 20.0%Other: 0.0%
	8.6%	Over-cutting: 14.3%Polished but wrong: 71.4%Other: 14.3%
	22.2%	Over-cutting: 50.0%Polished but wrong: 0.0%Other: 50.0%
	23.5%	Over-cutting: 47.4%Polished but wrong: 5.3%Other: 47.4%
	38.3%	Over-cutting: 67.7%Polished but wrong: 16.1%Other: 12.9%
	45.7%	Over-cutting: 62.2%Polished but wrong: 13.5%Other: 24.3%
	71.6%	Over-cutting: 19.0%Polished but wrong: 62.1%Other: 19.0%
	75.3%	Over-cutting: 26.2%Polished but wrong: 39.3%Other: 32.8%

View data table

Model	Error rate	Over-cutting	Polished but wrong	Other
Gemini 4 Argon	0.0%	Not applicable	Not applicable	Not applicable
GPT-6 Astra	4.9%	25.0%	75.0%	0.0%
Claude Opus 5.5	6.2%	80.0%	20.0%	0.0%
GPT-6.1 Sol	8.6%	14.3%	71.4%	14.3%
Claude Opus 4.6	22.2%	50.0%	0.0%	50.0%
Gemini 3.8 Flash	23.5%	47.4%	5.3%	47.4%
Claude Sonnet 5.5	38.3%	67.7%	16.1%	12.9%
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	45.7%	62.2%	13.5%	24.3%
GPT-6 Luna	71.6%	19.0%	62.1%	19.0%
Claude Haiku 5.5	75.3%	26.2%	39.3%	32.8%

How much do AI models write, and do they use the right material?

See how much each model writes and how much unwanted material it uses.

Model	Output lengthRelative to the author’s original 1×2×	Distractor useDistracting / required material 0×1×
	1.36×	0.34×
	1.73×	0.41×
	1.50×	0.49×
	1.73×	0.58×
	1.66×	0.59×
	1.68×	0.62×
	1.74×	0.66×
	1.31×	0.82×
	1.82×	0.86×
	1.97×	0.99×

Can AI models write what you mean after understanding it?

Does reading well mean writing well? Compare model rankings in both tasks.

Model	Reading	Writing
	Rank#1100.0%	Rank#373.2%
	Rank#295.1%	Rank#275.5%
	Rank#393.8%	Rank#184.9%
	Rank#491.4%	Rank#572.0%
	Rank#577.8%	Rank#757.5%
	Rank#676.5%	Rank#472.7%
	Rank#761.7%	Rank#664.1%
	Rank#854.3%	Rank#855.8%
	Rank#928.4%	Rank#954.4%
	Rank#1024.7%	Rank#1048.6%

When correct reading still leads to a wrong turn

Among the articles a model read correctly every time, how many still drifted from the author’s intent when rewritten?

44.4%

46.3%

54.0%

59.3%

65.1%

66.7%

77.8%

85.2%

View data table

Model	Reading	Writing	Breaks an author choice
Claude Opus 4.6	77.8%	57.5%	66.7%
Claude Haiku 5.5	24.7%	48.6%	No qualifying data
Claude Opus 5.5	93.8%	84.9%	44.4%
Claude Sonnet 5.5	61.7%	64.1%	85.2%
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	54.3%	55.8%	77.8%
Gemini 3.8 Flash	76.5%	72.7%	46.3%
Gemini 4 Argon	100.0%	73.2%	59.3%
GPT-6.1 Sol	91.4%	72.0%	65.1%
GPT-6 Astra	95.1%	75.5%	54.0%
GPT-6 Luna	28.4%	54.4%	No qualifying data