Score-per-dollar analysis across 300 AI models. Find the models that deliver the most performance for every dollar spent, broken down by price tier, provider, and the sweet spot between quality and affordability.
| # | Model | Score | Value Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LFM2-8B-A1BLiquid AI | 53 | 3546.7 |
| 2 | LFM2-2.6BLiquid AI | 53 | 3546.7 |
| 3 | Mistral NemoMistral AI | 51 | 1693.3 |
| 4 | Gemma 3n 4BGoogle | 46 | 1543.3 |
| 5 | Llama 3.1 8B InstructMeta | 42 | 1211.4 |
| 6 | Llama 3.2 11B Vision InstructMeta | 55 | 1112.2 |
| 7 | Llama Guard 3 8BMeta | 43 | 1075.0 |
| 8 | gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | 69 | 978.6 |
| 9 | Mistral Small 3.1 24BMistral AI | 66 | 945.7 |
| 10 | Gemma 3 4BGoogle | 56 | 936.7 |
| 11 | Mistral Small 3Mistral AI | 60 | 915.4 |
| 12 | Granite 4.0 MicroIBM | 55 | 867.7 |
| 13 | Trinity Miniarcee-ai | 82 | 845.1 |
| 14 | Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507Alibaba | 70 | 819.9 |
| 15 | Qwen3.5-9BAlibaba | 79 | 793.0 |
| 16 | Qwen-TurboAlibaba | 61 | 748.3 |
| 17 | Ministral 3 3B 2512Mistral AI | 73 | 726.0 |
| 18 | Nemotron Nano 9B V2NVIDIA | 72 | 716.0 |
| 19 | Qwen2.5 Coder 7B InstructAlibaba | 43 | 715.0 |
| 20 | LFM2-24B-A2BLiquid AI | 53 | 709.3 |
| 21 | Gemma 3 12BGoogle | 56 | 661.2 |
| 22 | Qwen2.5 7B InstructAlibaba | 43 | 612.9 |
| 23 | gpt-oss-120bOpenAI | 68 | 591.3 |
| 24 | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3BNVIDIA | 74 | 588.0 |
| 25 | Nova Micro 1.0Amazon | 51 | 586.3 |
| 26 | Phi 4Microsoft | 60 | 581.5 |
| 27 | Gemma 3 27BGoogle | 64 | 530.0 |
| 28 | Mistral Small 3.2 24BMistral AI | 67 | 490.2 |
| 29 | Ministral 3 8B 2512Mistral AI | 74 | 490.0 |
| 30 | Qwen3.5-FlashAlibaba | 79 | 488.6 |
| 31 | Command R7B (12-2024)Cohere | 45 | 476.8 |
| 32 | Qwen3 14BAlibaba | 72 | 476.7 |
| 33 | Olmo 3 7B ThinkAllen AI | 75 | 467.5 |
| 34 | Olmo 3 7B InstructAllen AI | 69 | 460.0 |
| 35 | Seed 1.6 FlashByteDance | 85 | 453.3 |
| 36 | Qwen3 32BAlibaba | 72 | 446.9 |
| 37 | gpt-oss-safeguard-20bOpenAI | 82 | 435.2 |
| 38 | MiMo-V2-FlashXiaomi | 83 | 434.7 |
| 39 | Rnj 1 Instructessentialai | 65 | 432.0 |
| 40 | Qwen3 Coder 30B A3B InstructAlibaba | 72 | 425.9 |
| 41 | UI-TARS 7B ByteDance | 63 | 418.0 |
| 42 | Gemini 2.0 Flash LiteGoogle | 76 | 404.3 |
| 43 | ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B ThinkingBaidu | 70 | 400.0 |
| 44 | Qwen3 30B A3BAlibaba | 72 | 397.2 |
| 45 | Nova Lite 1.0Amazon | 58 | 388.7 |
| 46 | Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507Alibaba | 75 | 385.6 |
| 47 | Pixtral 12BMistral AI | 38 | 384.0 |
| 48 | Llama 4 ScoutMeta | 72 | 379.5 |
| 49 | ERNIE 4.5 21B A3BBaidu | 65 | 373.1 |
| 50 | Ministral 3 14B 2512Mistral AI | 74 | 367.5 |
| # | Model | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nemotron 3 Super (free)NVIDIA | 84 |
| 2 | MiniMax M2.5 (free)MiniMax | 83 |
| 3 | Nemotron Nano 12B 2 VL (free)NVIDIA | 82 |
| 4 | Step 3.5 Flash (free)StepFun | 78 |
| 5 | gpt-oss-120b (free)OpenAI | 74 |
| 6 | gpt-oss-20b (free)OpenAI | 74 |
| 7 | Trinity Large Preview (free)arcee-ai | 73 |
| 8 | Trinity Mini (free)arcee-ai | 73 |
| 9 | Nemotron Nano 9B V2 (free)NVIDIA | 72 |
| 10 | Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (free)Alibaba | 69 |
| 11 | Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B (free)NVIDIA | 68 |
| 12 | Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct (free)Alibaba | 67 |
| 13 | Qwen3 4B (free)Alibaba | 63 |
| 14 | Gemma 3 27B (free)Google | 63 |
| 15 | Mistral Small 3.1 24B (free)Mistral AI | 62 |
| 16 | Gemma 3 4B (free)Google | 61 |
| 17 | LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking (free)Liquid AI | 59 |
| 18 | Gemma 3n 2B (free)Google | 58 |
| 19 | Gemma 3n 4B (free)Google | 56 |
| 20 | Gemma 3 12B (free)Google | 55 |
| 21 | LFM2.5-1.2B-Instruct (free)Liquid AI | 53 |
| 22 | Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (free)Meta | 44 |
| 23 | Llama 3.2 3B Instruct (free)Meta | 35 |
Models in the top 20% for value score AND top 50% for composite score. The best of both worlds.
| Provider | Models | Avg Score | Avg Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liquid AI | 3 | 53 | 2600.9 |
| Meta | 11 | 54 | 457.4 |
| Mistral AI | 24 | 61 | 312.9 |
| Allen AI | 7 | 65 | 312.6 |
| 18 | 76 | 300.6 | |
| NVIDIA | 7 | 67 | 299.6 |
| ByteDance | 5 | 81 | 272.5 |
| arcee-ai | 5 | 62 | 270.3 |
| Alibaba | 48 | 70 | 237.1 |
| Baidu | 5 | 69 | 232.5 |
The value score is computed as composite quality score divided by average cost per million tokens. A model scoring 80 at $0.50/1M tokens has a value score of 160, while a model scoring 90 at $15/1M tokens has a value score of 6. Higher values mean more quality per dollar spent. Free models are excluded from value rankings since division by zero is undefined.
Sweet Spot models sit in the top 20% for value score AND the top 50% for composite quality score. They represent the best of both worlds: genuinely high-quality models that also deliver excellent value for money. These are the models most likely to satisfy both quality requirements and budget constraints.
Budget tier models (under $1/1M tokens) typically offer the highest value scores because even moderate quality at very low cost produces a strong ratio. However, the sweet spot analysis shows that some mid-tier models deliver the best combination of absolute quality and value. The ideal choice depends on whether you prioritize raw quality or cost efficiency.