MirrorCode

What MirrorCode measures

MirrorCode does not yet have two source-matched reasoning-effort score/cost rows for one model, so the Cost Efficiency chart shows one point per model and will connect effort levels when qualifying data is imported.

Reading the cost view

MirrorCode publishes no per-run cost, so this chart falls back to each model's estimated effective cost per 1M I/O tokens (a runtime estimate from measured or imputed token usage, not a published task cost). Explicit reasoning/nonreasoning siblings are connected where both are public; every other model is a standalone point. Up and to the left is better.

Reading the completion-time view

Each point is a public model's MirrorCode score against its estimated completion time (time to last token) for the input and output lengths set by the sliders. Timing comes from the site's per-model speed measurements, not from the benchmark run, so every point is an estimate and labels carry a ~ prefix. The newest generation with a published result is shown by default. Up and to the left is better.

Reading the score bars

Bars rank models by the source-backed benchmark value used for this chart. Longer bars indicate higher published scores.

Reading the model table

Each row is one canonical model: the score shown is the same best published configuration the score bars use. Models with several published reasoning-effort levels expand to one sub-row per level, with the score and effective cost per 1M I/O Tokens the source reports for that level. This benchmark publishes no per-run cost, so the cost column is the site's estimated effective cost per 1M I/O tokens (marked ~). Completion time is the site's estimated time to last token for a 10K-token input and 1K-token output (marked ~), not a benchmark run time. The top 20 rows are shown by default; click a column heading to sort, and missing values always sort last.

Data sources