Mellum2.1 Thinking vs Claude Haiku 5.5

Overall
9
vs
Overall
70

Claude Haiku 5.5 is clearly better. It wins 106 of the 107 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 2.1× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
91m 56s
10.3K, 63% thinking3.9K, 78% thinking
7025.5s
Agents
92m 3s
10.8K, 93% thinking3.7K, 61% thinking
6139.5s
Structured Extraction
51m 36s
8.3K, 51% thinking2.6K, 83% thinking
9013.5s
Coding
52m 11s
11.3K, 38% thinking6.8K, 76% thinking
8630.6s
Grounded Answers
131m 24s
7.3K, 62% thinking2.2K, 78% thinking
7613.9s
Instruction Following
283m 10s
17.3K, 63% thinking4.3K, 82% thinking
9431.5s
Business Logic
01m 39s
9K, 50% thinking5.5K, 95% thinking
6726.0s
Security & permissions
81m 40s
9.1K, 75% thinking2.7K, 70% thinking
6723.4s
Diagnosis & investigation
01m 15s
6.8K, 98% thinking2.3K, 50% thinking
1725.5s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
90 tok/s
225 tok/s
Machine
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Hosted
Memory at 32K
12.9 GB
—
Context
128K
1M (better)
Cost per run
$2.46 est.
$0.42 (better)
Cost per case
$0.016 est.
$0.0028 (better)
Time per case
1m 56s
25.5s (better)
Quantization
Q8_0
—
Harness
llama.cpp
openrouter

The race

No lead changes

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

Mellum2.1 ThinkingClaude Haiku 5.5
025507510050100150Perfect run970

Every test case

153 test cases

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

1 won by Mellum2.1 Thinking106 won by Claude Haiku 5.546 tied