Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Mellum2.1 Thinking

Overall
57
vs
Overall
9

Beam 1.0 501B A23B is clearly better. It wins 87 of the 88 test cases where they differ.

Learn to build evals like this in the AI Engineering Academy

Task by task

A score turns orange only when that model wins clearly more of the task's test cases. Under each score, the average time per test case on the machine it ran on. Mellum2.1 Thinking spends 1.8× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
5717.2s
4K, 87% thinking10.3K, 63% thinking
91m 56s
Agents
5521.8s
4.8K, 90% thinking10.8K, 93% thinking
92m 3s
Structured Extraction
819.98s
3.4K, 91% thinking8.3K, 51% thinking
51m 36s
Coding
4819.9s
4.5K, 70% thinking11.3K, 38% thinking
52m 11s
Grounded Answers
6911.6s
2.7K, 88% thinking7.3K, 62% thinking
131m 24s
Instruction Following
7820.9s
5.6K, 90% thinking17.3K, 63% thinking
283m 10s
Business Logic
5714.0s
4.2K, 95% thinking9K, 50% thinking
01m 39s
Security & permissions
5120.6s
3.2K, 88% thinking9.1K, 75% thinking
81m 40s
Diagnosis & investigation
1724.3s
3.1K, 90% thinking6.8K, 98% thinking
01m 15s

What you'd run

The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.

SpecAB
Speed
274 tok/s
90 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Memory at 32K
—
12.9 GB
Context
1M (better)
128K
Cost per run
$0.83 (better)
$2.46 est.
Cost per case
$0.0054 (better)
$0.016 est.
Time per case
17.2s (better)
1m 56s
Quantization
FP8
Q8_0
Harness
openrouter
llama.cpp

The race

No lead changes

Each model's running score as the test cases go by. The dashed line is a perfect run.

Beam 1.0 501B A23BMellum2.1 Thinking
025507510050100150Perfect run579

Every test case

153 test cases

Each square is one test case, colored by the model that scored higher.

87 won by Beam 1.0 501B A23B1 won by Mellum2.1 Thinking65 tied