Cost mode:

Category: Financial Analysis & Trading Decisions · Typical I/O: 5378→2487 tokens

Runs on model group: All models. Inputs may reach any model in the group, not only the ranked models below.

Run this task on Fronset — request an invitation

Models

Frontier on this task: GPT-6 Sol at 8.78 / 10. Quality bar at 90%: 7.90.

point-estimate floor (CI low) · upper CI (less certain) · Bars sorted by blended cost; best-value model first. Greyed rows are MEDIUM+ models whose point estimate does not clear the bar.

ModelQuality scoreCI lowCost / 1k runsvs best value
GPT-6 Luna8.60 / 108.25$0.90best value
Thinking Machines Inkling Small7.95 / 107.64$7.428.2x more expensive
GLM-5.3 Flash8.03 / 107.66$14.6716x more expensive
GPT-6 Sol8.78 / 108.32$17.3619x more expensive
Meta Muse Spark 1.37.98 / 107.72$24.8928x more expensive
Thinking Machines Inkling8.00 / 107.60$33.9638x more expensive
Tencent Hy4 Preview7.91 / 107.63$40.7145x more expensive
Claude Opus 5.58.21 / 107.81$54.9561x more expensive
Grok 4.78.04 / 107.61$58.2664x more expensive
Moonshot Kimi K38.17 / 107.73$90.33100x more expensive
GLM-5.38.26 / 108.01$149.09165x more expensive
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning5.34 / 104.91$1.721.9x more expensive
Tencent Hy36.81 / 106.47$1.261.4x more expensive
Claude Sonnet 5.57.26 / 106.77$25.8229x more expensive
Qwen 3.7 Plus6.64 / 106.16$7.147.9x more expensive
NVIDIA Nemotron-3 Nano 30B-A3B5.54 / 105.05$1.051.2x more expensive
NVIDIA Nemotron-3 Ultra 550B6.77 / 106.31$6.487.2x more expensive
Qwen 3.8 Max7.18 / 106.85$81.0690x more expensive
Qwen 3.8 Flash6.05 / 105.76$11.2212x more expensive
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite6.12 / 105.75$1.511.7x more expensive
NVIDIA Nemotron-3 Super 120B6.65 / 106.25$2.082.3x more expensive
Xiaomi MiMo V2.6 Pro7.72 / 107.32$2.282.5x more expensive
Claude Haiku 5.57.37 / 106.95$1.441.6x more expensive
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash7.37 / 106.98$3.113.4x more expensive
Xiaomi MiMo V2.6 Flash7.05 / 106.70$0.846% cheaper
Gemini 3.8 Flash6.68 / 106.41$6.537.2x more expensive

Cost breakdown

ModelQualityConfidenceCost / 1k runsOverpayMode
GPT-6 Luna ★ OpenAI8.60 / 10 CI [8.25, 8.96]MEDIUM$0.90best valuebatch
Thinking Machines Inkling Small OpenRouter7.95 / 10 CI [7.64, 8.25]MEDIUM$7.428.2xbatch
GLM-5.3 Flash Z.AI8.03 / 10 CI [7.66, 8.39]MEDIUM$14.6716xbatch
GPT-6 Sol best OpenAI8.78 / 10 CI [8.32, 9.24]MEDIUM$17.3619xbatch
Meta Muse Spark 1.3 OpenRouter7.98 / 10 CI [7.72, 8.25]HIGH$24.8928xbatch
Thinking Machines Inkling OpenRouter8.00 / 10 CI [7.60, 8.39]MEDIUM$33.9638xbatch
Tencent Hy4 Preview OpenRouter7.91 / 10 CI [7.63, 8.19]HIGH$40.7145xbatch
Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic8.21 / 10 CI [7.81, 8.61]MEDIUM$54.9561xbatch
Grok 4.7 xAI8.04 / 10 CI [7.61, 8.47]MEDIUM$58.2664xbatch
Moonshot Kimi K3 Moonshot AI8.17 / 10 CI [7.73, 8.60]MEDIUM$90.33100xbatch
GLM-5.3 Z.AI8.26 / 10 CI [8.01, 8.51]HIGH$149.09165xbatch

Overpay shows how much more you pay than the best-value model that clears the quality bar (marked ★) — the best-value good-enough option. "16x" means you overpay 16× — 16× that reference for no quality benefit above the bar. Typical call shape for this task: 5378 input tokens → 2487 output tokens, EMA-tracked from production traffic. Cost is the observed, all-in $ per 1,000 task runs: each model's own measured usage on this task — output verbosity, thinking/reasoning tokens, cache reads and writes, and the spend on its billed failures — priced at current list rates and adjusted by the billing overhead we actually reconcile against provider invoices. Models that answer tersely cost what they actually cost; models that think at length pay for it. Not comparable to providers' advertised $/1M list rates — this is what running the task costs, not a per-token price.

Evaluation rubric

Judge source grounding and recency, catalyst materiality under the supplied analysis profile, timing and probability calibration, scenario consistency, quantitative transparency, risk balance, separation of fact and assumption, and compliance with profile-defined prohibited conclusions.

Output schema

Every answer on this task is checked against this JSON Schema, whichever model wrote it. An answer that doesn't fit counts as a model failure, and the call is retried on another model.

{
  "$defs": {
    "RecommendationStrength": {
      "description": "Strength levels for trading recommendations",
      "enum": [
        "LOW",
        "MEDIUM",
        "HIGH"
      ],
      "title": "RecommendationStrength",
      "type": "string"
    },
    "RecommendationType": {
      "description": "Trading recommendation types",
      "enum": [
        "BULLISH",
        "BEARISH"
      ],
      "title": "RecommendationType",
      "type": "string"
    },
    "SentimentBreakdown": {
      "description": "Breakdown of sentiment analysis across sources",
      "properties": {
        "negative_sources": {
          "description": "Number of sources with negative sentiment",
          "minimum": 0,
          "title": "Negative Sources",
          "type": "integer"
        },
        "neutral_sources": {
          "description": "Number of sources with neutral sentiment",
          "minimum": 0,
          "title": "Neutral Sources",
          "type": "integer"
        },
        "overall_sentiment_score": {
          "description": "Overall sentiment score from -100 (very bearish) to +100 (very bullish)",
          "maximum": 100,
          "minimum": -100,
          "title": "Overall Sentiment Score",
          "type": "number"
        },
        "positive_sources": {
          "description": "Number of sources with positive sentiment",
          "minimum": 0,
          "title": "Positive Sources",
          "type": "integer"
        }
      },
      "required": [
        "positive_sources",
        "negative_sources",
        "neutral_sources",
        "overall_sentiment_score"
      ],
      "title": "SentimentBreakdown",
      "type": "object"
    }
  },
  "description": "Trading recommendation schema for bullish/bearish analysis\nBased on news sentiment and market intelligence",
  "example": {
    "confidence_score": 78.5,
    "key_catalysts": [
      "Q4 delivery numbers exceeded expectations",
      "Cybertruck production ramp announcement",
      "Energy storage segment growth"
    ],
    "market_context_notes": "Tech sector showing strength, EV subsidy policies supportive",
    "next_review_triggers": [
      "Next week's production update",
      "Competitor earnings releases",
      "Federal Reserve meeting outcome"
    ],
    "recommendation": "BULLISH",
    "recommendation_strength": "HIGH",
    "risk_factors": [
      "Regulatory scrutiny on autonomous driving",
      "Increased EV competition",
      "Supply chain constraints"
    ],
    "sentiment_breakdown": {
      "negative_sources": 20,
      "neutral_sources": 15,
      "overall_sentiment_score": 42.3,
      "positive_sources": 65
    },
    "subject_code": "TSLA",
    "supporting_evidence": [
      "Deliveries up 15% QoQ based on company announcement",
      "Wall Street analyst consensus upgrade to $280 price target",
      "Social sentiment strongly positive following earnings call"
    ],
    "timeline_expectations": "2-5 trading days, high conviction for weekly cycle",
    "total_sources_analyzed": 100
  },
  "properties": {
    "confidence_score": {
      "description": "Confidence level in the recommendation (0-100)",
      "maximum": 100,
      "minimum": 0,
      "title": "Confidence Score",
      "type": "number"
    },
    "expected_pct_change": {
      "anyOf": [
        {
          "maximum": 100,
          "minimum": -100,
          "type": "number"
        },
        {
          "type": "null"
        }
      ],
      "default": null,
      "description": "Expected percentage change in price based on analysis",
      "title": "Expected Pct Change"
    },
    "key_catalysts": {
      "anyOf": [
        {
          "items": {
            "type": "string"
          },
          "type": "array"
        },
        {
          "type": "null"
        }
      ],
      "default": null,
      "description": "Primary market-moving events or factors driving the recommendation",
      "example": [
        "Earnings beat expectations",
        "New product launch",
        "Analyst upgrade"
      ],
      "title": "Key Catalysts"
    },
    "market_context_notes": {
      "anyOf": [
        {
          "type": "string"
        },
        {
          "type": "null"
        }
      ],
      "default": null,
      "description": "Additional context about broader market conditions affecting the analysis",
      "title": "Market Context Notes"
    },
    "next_review_triggers": {
      "anyOf": [
        {
          "items": {
            "type": "string"
          },
          "type": "array"
        },
        {
          "type": "null"
        }
      ],
      "default": null,
      "description": "Specific events, dates, or conditions that should prompt recommendation review",
      "example": [
        "Weekly earnings report",
        "Fed announcement",
        "Product launch date"
      ],
      "title": "Next Review Triggers"
    },
    "recommendation": {
      "$ref": "#/$defs/RecommendationType",
      "description": "Trading recommendation: BULLISH (buy calls/long) or BEARISH (puts/short)"
    },
    "recommendation_strength": {
      "$ref": "#/$defs/RecommendationStrength",
      "description": "Strength of the recommendation based on evidence quality and consensus"
    },
    "risk_factors": {
      "anyOf": [
        {
          "items": {
            "type": "string"
          },
          "type": "array"
        },
        {
          "type": "null"
        }
      ],
      "default": null,
      "description": "Key risks that could negatively impact the recommendation",
      "example": [
        "Market volatility",
        "Regulatory concerns",
        "Competitive pressure"
      ],
      "title": "Risk Factors"
    },
    "sentiment_breakdown": {
      "anyOf": [
        {
          "$ref": "#/$defs/SentimentBreakdown"
        },
        {
          "type": "null"
        }
      ],
      "default": null,
      "description": "Detailed breakdown of source sentiment analysis"
    },
    "subject_code": {
      "anyOf": [
        {
          "type": "string"
        },
        {
          "type": "null"
        }
      ],
      "default": null,
      "description": "Stock ticker symbol or entity identifier",
      "example": "AAPL",
      "title": "Subject Code"
    },
    "supporting_evidence": {
      "anyOf": [
        {
          "items": {
            "type": "string"
          },
          "maxItems": 10,
          "type": "array"
        },
        {
          "type": "null"
        }
      ],
      "default": null,
      "description": "Key quotes, facts, or data points from sources supporting the recommendation",
      "title": "Supporting Evidence"
    },
    "timeframe_days": {
      "anyOf": [
        {
          "minimum": 1,
          "type": "integer"
        },
        {
          "type": "null"
        }
      ],
      "default": null,
      "description": "expected_pct_change is expected in timeframe_days",
      "title": "Timeframe Days"
    },
    "timeline_expectations": {
      "anyOf": [
        {
          "type": "string"
        },
        {
          "type": "null"
        }
      ],
      "default": null,
      "description": "Expected timeframe for recommendation validity and price movement",
      "example": "1-3 trading days, subject to weekly review",
      "title": "Timeline Expectations"
    },
    "total_sources_analyzed": {
      "anyOf": [
        {
          "minimum": 1,
          "type": "integer"
        },
        {
          "type": "null"
        }
      ],
      "default": null,
      "description": "Total number of source documents analyzed",
      "title": "Total Sources Analyzed"
    }
  },
  "required": [
    "recommendation",
    "confidence_score",
    "recommendation_strength"
  ],
  "title": "TradingRecommendation",
  "type": "object"
}

Prompt templates

The published template for this task.

default · LLMB_CATALYST_AND_SCENARIO_ANALYSIS_SYSTEM + LLMB_CATALYST_AND_SCENARIO_ANALYSIS_USER (0 calls in window)

System prompt

Analyze only the dimensions requested by analysis_profile using supplied, time-stamped sources. Distinguish observed fact, source assertion, consensus, calculation, assumption, and scenario. Make timeframe, probability, direction, magnitude, and uncertainty explicit where the profile requests them. Use analysis_profile as the sole source of domain, decision context, quantitative framework, safety constraints, and prohibited conclusions. Treat empty optional values as absent and return only the requested result. Your response must conform exactly to this output schema: {schema_json_string}.

User prompt

Inputs — subject_name: {subject_name}; subject_code: {subject_code}; sources: {sources}; analysis_profile: {analysis_profile}. Use only these inputs to complete the task defined by the system prompt.