Low
Tested setting-11.0 pts vs Extra high
$0.1748 / source task
98 s median duration
Reasoning effort controls how much thinking a model is asked to do before answering. Compare the same model at different settings to see when extra thinking improves results, when gains level off and when scores fall.
LiveBench includes extra high and max for both models on the same question set; it has no lower-setting, cost or duration measurements for them. GPT-6.1 Sol also has small Codex experiments with lower settings and timing data. Choose that separate evidence on its page and keep its questions and subscription environment in view.
Grok 4.6 compares four thinking settings offered by its API. The Qwen3.6 27B study instead sets a maximum number of thinking tokens while running the model locally. It measures coding results, time and token use. These are different controls, so their labels cannot be treated as equivalents.
Published blended DataBench score, on a 0–100 scale. Judge-based analytical task performance; not a general intelligence or guaranteed success rate.
Analytics in the Hex agent harness · Leaderboard updated: 2026-09-22 · Reviewed 2026-10-16Check the source ↗Lowest measured cost within 1.0 points of the best tested analytics score.
61.3 / 100 · $0.5817 / source taskSet 0 for the highest score. Increase the gap to explore cheaper or lighter options.
● Near-best pickOrange = score decreased
Scores out of 100 · Full 0–100 scale · tap a point to select mode B. Cyan band: within 1.0 points of the best tested score.
Measured average USD per benchmark task.
Measured in this study with its particular tools and setup. Your task mix, tools, caching and endpoint can change the result.
Noticeable gap · B scored lower
Same benchmark workload
Measured with the study’s testing setup
We describe gaps under 1 point as small, 1–under 5 as noticeable, and 5 or more as large. These are reading aids, not proof that a difference would hold up in repeated tests. Equal scores can still hide different mistakes.
Extra high → Max-4.3 pts61.3 → 57.0 on analytics score
-11.0 pts vs Extra high
$0.1748 / source task
98 s median duration
-10.0 pts vs Extra high
$0.2708 / source task
146 s median duration
-6.7 pts vs Extra high
$0.3874 / source task
238 s median duration
0.0 pts vs Extra high
$0.5817 / source task
327 s median duration
-4.3 pts vs Extra high
$0.9845 / source task
618 s median duration
Swipe inside the table for all measures. Figures from different study selections are not directly comparable.
| Effort | Analytics score | Cost / task | Median seconds | Output tokens | Exact source ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | 50.3 | $0.1748 | 97.6 | — | GPT-6 Sol · Low |
| Medium | 51.3 | $0.2708 | 146.2 | — | GPT-6 Sol · Medium |
| High | 54.7 | $0.3874 | 238.0 | — | GPT-6 Sol · High |
| Extra high | 61.3 | $0.5817 | 326.7 | — | GPT-6 Sol · XHigh |
| Max | 57.0 | $0.9845 | 617.5 | — | GPT-6 Sol · Max |
What would A versus B cost if you repeated this benchmark’s average workload?
A source-workload scenario using average measured USD costs. Source prices, caching and tools are already reflected in those observed costs. Your agent’s costs may differ.
Estimate the extra bill from thinking tokens. The starting token counts are editable examples, not measurements of GPT-6 Sol. Rates start from the current model snapshot.
Mode B costs $40 more per month with these assumptions.
This estimate uses the token counts and prices you enter. Excludes retries, tools, caching, long-context premiums, hosting and taxes. Includes thinking in output billing; do not also include it in “visible output.” Check endpoint limits separately. Changing mode does not automatically predict tokens or quality.
12,288 tokens is the lowest-token option within 1 point of the best coding tasks passed in Will Hampson · Qwen coding study. Unrestricted trails the best tested score by 2.0 points.
Will Hampson · Qwen coding studyAnthropic · 1 studyMax is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 3.3 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1Anthropic · 1 studyMax is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 10.7 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1Anthropic · 1 studyExtra high is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. Max trails the best tested score by 3.8 points.
LiveBenchAnthropic · 2 studiesHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 11.9 points.
LiveBenchAnthropic · 1 studyExtra high is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 8.1 points.
LiveBenchAnthropic · 3 studiesExtra high is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. Max trails the best tested score by 3.7 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1 · LiveBench · OckBenchAnthropic · 2 studiesMax is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 4.0 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1 · OckBenchAnthropic · 2 studiesMax is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 16.5 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1 · LiveBenchAnthropic · 1 studyMedium is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. High trails the best tested score by 0.2 points.
LiveBenchAnthropic · 1 studyMedium is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. Max trails the best tested score by 2.0 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1Anthropic · 1 studyExtra high is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. Max trails the best tested score by 1.2 points.
LiveBenchDeepSeek · 1 studyMax is the lowest-token option within 1 point of the best overall accuracy in OckBench. The tested score range is 62.5 points.
OckBenchDeepSeek · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-token option within 1 point of the best overall accuracy in OckBench. The tested score range is 59.0 points.
OckBenchDeepSeek · 1 studyLow is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 0.3 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1Google · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 22.1 points.
LiveBenchGoogle · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 13.3 points.
LiveBenchGoogle · 1 studyMedium is the lowest-token option within 1 point of the best overall accuracy in OckBench. The tested score range is 8.0 points.
OckBenchOpenAI · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 21.3 points.
LiveBenchOpenAI · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 28.7 points.
LiveBenchOpenAI · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 15.1 points.
LiveBenchOpenAI · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 15.3 points.
LiveBenchOpenAI · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 9.8 points.
LiveBenchOpenAI · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. Extra high trails the best tested score by 0.8 points.
LiveBenchOpenAI · 2 studiesExtra high is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 7.0 points.
LiveBench · OckBenchOpenAI · 1 studyExtra high is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 23.1 points.
LiveBenchOpenAI · 1 studyExtra high is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 25.4 points.
LiveBenchOpenAI · 3 studiesExtra high is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 11.0 points.
LiveBench · OckBench · Stet coding case studyOpenAI · 1 studyExtra high is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 16.3 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1OpenAI · 2 studiesMedium is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 10.7 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1 · Joonlab · Codex subscription studyOpenAI · 1 studyExtra high is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 12.3 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1OpenAI · 3 studiesLow is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 3.0 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1 · Joonlab · Codex subscription studyOpenAI · 3 studiesMax is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 22.0 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1 · Joonlab · Codex subscription studyOpenAI · 3 studiesExtra high is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. Max trails the best tested score by 4.3 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1 · Joonlab · Codex subscription studyOpenAI · 3 studiesExtra high is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best general agent fit in LiveBench. The tested score range is 0.6 points.
LiveBench · Joonlab · Codex subscription studyOpenAI · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best overall benchmark in LiveBench. The tested score range is 1.5 points.
LiveBenchOpenAI · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best overall benchmark in LiveBench. The tested score range is 11.6 points.
LiveBenchOpenAI · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-effort option within 1 point of the best overall benchmark in LiveBench. The tested score range is 4.3 points.
LiveBenchZ.ai · 2 studiesHigh is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. Max trails the best tested score by 4.3 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1 · OckBenchZ.ai · 1 studyMax is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 7.7 points.
Hex DataBench v1.1xAI · 1 studyHigh is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best intelligence index in Artificial Analysis. Extra high trails the best tested score by 0.1 points.
Artificial AnalysisNo. Some published comparisons show a lower score at a higher effort. For example, GPT-6 Sol scores 61.3 at extra high and 57.0 at max in Hex DataBench v1.1. That is a 4.3-point observed decline in this analytics test. It does not prove that max is worse on every task.
Choose a matching benchmark and task measure first. LiveBench offers coding, research and other task-weighted profiles; OckBench separates math, coding and science; DataBench covers analytics agents. Our near-best pick selects the lowest measured cost, otherwise lowest measured output tokens, otherwise lowest tested effort within your allowed score gap. Validate the shortlist on your own tasks.
Xhigh means extra high reasoning effort. It asks a supported model to invest more effort than high, but it is not a fixed token budget. Available settings and defaults depend on the model, provider and tool. The same label is not a comparable quantity across providers.
It depends on the benchmark, task count and repeatability. We call gaps under 1 point small, 1 to under 5 noticeable, and 5 or more large as a reading aid. Those labels and the default 1-point tolerance are editorial choices, not statistical significance tests. The sources generally do not supply per-mode confidence intervals.
Only explicitly identified, published configurations enter a sweep. Missing modes are not estimated, and unknown defaults are excluded. We show dollar costs or duration only when the same source measured them. Output tokens alone cannot determine the full bill.
Yes. The measured-cost calculator scales the average cost of a benchmark task. The separate reasoning-token calculator uses your own token assumptions and editable input/output prices. A mode label alone cannot predict its token usage, cost or score on your workload.