Flint vs Mellum2.1 Thinking

Overall
21
vs
Overall
9

Flint is clearly better. It wins 26 of the 28 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. Flint spends 1.5× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
211m 17s
10.9K, 90% thinking10.3K, 63% thinking
91m 56s
Agents
1447.7s
4.8K, 85% thinking10.8K, 93% thinking
92m 3s
Structured Extraction
291m 17s
10.9K, 87% thinking8.3K, 51% thinking
51m 36s
Coding
141m 19s
12K, 98% thinking11.3K, 38% thinking
52m 11s
Grounded Answers
2957.7s
8.7K, 93% thinking7.3K, 62% thinking
131m 24s
Instruction Following
352m 28s
22.2K, 93% thinking17.3K, 63% thinking
283m 10s
Business Logic
101m 20s
11.7K, 78% thinking9K, 50% thinking
01m 39s
Security & permissions
3552.6s
7.1K, 90% thinking9.1K, 75% thinking
81m 40s
Diagnosis & investigation
057.0s
7.3K, 99% 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
149 tok/s
90 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Memory at 32K
—
12.9 GB
Context
256K (better)
128K
Cost per run
Not measured
$2.46 est.
Cost per case
Not measured
$0.016 est.
Time per case
1m 17s (better)
1m 56s
Quantization
BF16
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.

FlintMellum2.1 Thinking
025507510050100150219

Every test case

153 test cases

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

26 won by Flint2 won by Mellum2.1 Thinking125 tied