a reference, not a listicle

For each job, which AI actually wins

We compute each ranking from stated criteria and print the arithmetic on the same page. A number with no source does not get printed, and every page carries its own last-checked date.

  • computed, not opinionated
  • every number sourced and dated
  • an access-from-Iran column

How a ranking in this section is calculated

Three inputs go into one calculation and a table comes out. All three are visible on the page itself, and the fourth input is deliberately left unconnected.

  • 1The criteria

    Each category has its own criteria, and they are written on that same page.

  • 2The weights

    Every weight is visible. Change a weight and the table recomputes.

  • 3A source per number

    From the maker, or from the benchmark own leaderboard. Unverified stays unverified.

  • A cell with no source

    Scoring zero and being unverified are two different things, and they stay two different things in the table. This input never enters the calculation and the cell stays empty.

  • The ranking calculation

    Change a weight and the table recomputes. There is no manual position field in this section at all.

  • The ranking table

    The arithmetic sits beside the table, plus an access from Iran column with the date it was checked.

The rankings here are temporary, and that is correct: any new release can move the table.

What do you want the AI to do

Each job has a ranking table whose criteria and weights are written on the page.

Chat and assistants The model whose answers people actually prefer, from a leaderboard that carries a date and a vote count. Current pick Claude Fable 5 the maker has replaced it with Claude Fable 5.1 Studying and learning The tool that turns your own material into something you can review, not an answer you only read. Current pick Gemini Notebook Video generation The model that gives you longer, cleaner video with more references in a single generation. Current pick Seedance 2.5 Coding The model that writes better code, from the web-dev leaderboard and the real price. Current pick Claude Fable 5.1 Image generation The model that makes the better image, at the price you actually pay. Current pick GPT Image 2 Music generation Which tool sounds better, and which one lets you keep the file at the end. Current pick Suno Voice Which model turns text into a voice, and which one only claims to be multilingual. Current pick ElevenLabs v3 Translation Which translation model names the language you need, and which one you can actually run. Current pick Command A Translate

If you already know what you are after and just want the numbers: Every model, one table

Why these pages differ from the other lists

The arithmetic is on the page

Each job has its own criteria, each criterion a weight, and every weight is visible. Change a weight and the table recomputes. There is no "manual position" field in this section at all, so no ranking can move without a visible reason.

We write down what we do not know

If we could not verify a number from the vendor or from the benchmark own leaderboard, the cell stays empty and says "not verified". Scoring zero and being unverified are two different things, and they stay two different things in the table.

A column only we can write

For every tool we write whether it is reachable from Iran, whether a card works, and if not, what actually works instead. We check it ourselves from an Iranian connection and print the date we checked.

One page, four languages

Every page exists in Persian, English, Arabic and Turkish, and each language is written rather than translated. The facts and the numbers are identical across the four; the sentences are not.

The makers

Each maker has three axes: the products you sign in to, the model families, and the versions.

Anthropic The maker of Claude. Today the strongest pick for coding and long-running agents. Google The widest catalogue on the market. The only maker shipping in all six categories. Moonshot AI The maker of Kimi. The cheapest route to a model that ranks third in our coding table. Z.ai The maker of GLM. The only vendor in this group with a zero dollar row on its own price list. DeepSeek The cheapest model in our coding table, and the clearest change log in this group. Alibaba The maker of Qwen. The one catalogue in this group that does not list the model the leaderboard ranks. OpenAI The maker of ChatGPT. The one vendor in this reference whose page is deliberately incomplete. xAI The maker of Grok. The only vendor here that prints the price of a tool invocation. ByteDance The maker of Seedance. Its model leads our video table and its docs trail its models. Kuaishou The Chinese company behind Kling. Nobody searches its name and everybody searches its product. Runway The maker of Gen-4.5, and the shop that also sells its rivals. Mistral AI The French maker whose flagship model ships with open weights under Apache 2.0. Cohere The Canadian maker that names Persian, and closes all three routes to it. Amazon Both the maker of Nova and the reseller of everyone else through Bedrock. Do not read them as one thing. Meta The maker of Llama. It publishes the weights, but the licence is not what people think. ElevenLabs The best known name in AI voice. Only one of its models reads Persian.

Latest changes

  • Both leaderboards this reference ranks from were re-read, and the result is the largest single shift in its history. In the 2 September update of the WebDev board the claude-fable-5.1-max row went first at 1765, with the next row, claude-opus-5-max, at 1687: seventy-eight points, in a column whose whole top end fitted inside twenty-two points a week ago. So Opus 5 lost the top of the coding category after three weeks and its score fell from 77.5 to 62.7. The Fable 5.1 data file had written on 2 September that its categories were deliberately empty and would be filled the moment Arena rated it; that condition is now met, and the model entered the coding and chat categories with two evidence rows. On the chat board, though, Fable 5 held first at 1507 and 5.1 came second at 1504, three points between a retired model and its successor. All nine existing candidates were updated too: Qwen3.8 Max fell from 1490 to 1480 on the text board and dropped from fourth to eighth in chat, and Kimi K3 Max went from third to fifth in coding on an untouched 1674, because new candidates landed above it. Coding
  • GPT-5.6 Sol got cheaper: input from $5 to $4 and output from $30 to $20 per million tokens, read from OpenAI own pricing page. It is the only model in this reference whose price has ever fallen rather than risen. Its Iran column filled at the same time, and the reason was a mistake of ours that this run corrected: we had written that the supported-countries list lives only on openai.com and that the domain returns 403 to our server. The domain still returns 403, but the same list also sits on developers.openai.com, which is open; about 195 countries and territories are named and Iran is not among them. Those ten Iran weights plus the price drop took the model from 54.2 to 65.2 in the chat category, though it still moved down a place to fourth because Fable 5.1 entered above it.
  • Thirteen new models joined the catalogue and two of them entered the ranking tables. GPT-6 Astra is OpenAI new flagship at $10 in and $50 out with a 1.05M token window, and it is deliberately in no table because neither leaderboard carries a row under that name. Gemini 3.8 Flash is the first Google model to take a rank here, at 1494 on the text board, above the Opus 5 row. Muse Spark 1.3 and 1.2 from Meta were added too, and the point about them is that their weights are not published: the maker best known for years for publishing weights now ships its own top model closed. The rest: Kimi K2.7 Code, Grok 4.20, Veo 3.1 Lite, Lyria 3.5 Pro, Gemini 3.5 Transcribe, Eleven Music v2 and Scribe v2. The two transcription models are deliberately out of the audio category, because 65 of that rubric weight sits on Persian quality and voice control and both are about making speech rather than hearing it.
  • The Claude Fable 5.1 page was written, for a model released on 1 September 2026. The finding: the base price did not move at all, $10 in and $50 out exactly as on Fable 5, and the only row that changed on Anthropic pricing table is the cache read, from one dollar to twenty-five cents. Anthropic calls that an exception in a footnote under that same table, because the cache multiplier is 0.1x the input price on every Claude model and 0.025x on Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 alone. The benchmark jump is not uniform either, and that became the argument of the page: agentic scientific research goes from 24.7 to 52.6, terminal coding from 42.0 to 55.8, but CursorBench only from 70.5 to 73.4. The model appears in no ranking table on this site and that is a decision: the coding rubric puts 70 of its 100 points on two Arena leaderboards and a one-day-old model has not been rated on either, so placing it in the category would only print it below the table as unranked. Mythos 5.1 was added to the catalogue and Fable 5 moved to legacy. Claude Fable 5.1

What changed

A blunt word about this page

We built this because our own clients keep asking which tool to buy for a given job, and the answer changes every quarter. So the rankings here are temporary, and that is correct: any new release can move the table.

What you will not find here is an account for sale. We sell no subscriptions and no placement in any table. If something needs doing with these tools, the service for it is on the site and says so plainly.

Measured demand for this topic in the United States

AI image generation runs 823,000 searches a month and the click costs $0.85. Enormous attention, almost no commercial value per visitor. That single ratio explains why so many AI tools struggle to convert traffic into revenue.

QuerySearches a monthCost per clickDifficultyIntent
ai image generator823,000$0.8593Informational
ai video generator165,000$1.7191Commercial
ai chatbot90,500$0.6895Commercial
ai tools27,100$3.8991Informational + Commercial
best ai tools6,600$4.5773Commercial

Source: Semrush, US database, pulled 27 August 2026. Volumes age; treat anything older than a quarter as a direction, not a number.