6 min readJust now

–

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The real question isn’t “Which LLM is best?” but “Which LLM is best for the task?” Models are tools, not trophies. Different context windows, training priorities, and deployment options make some models shine at coding, others at long-document analysis, and others at multilingual work or high-volume. Chasing a single winner wastes time and money; matching model strengths to your task delivers far better results.

One week, GPT-4o holds the crown. The next, Claude 3.5 Sonnet takes the lead. Then, Llama 3 arrives to disrupt everything. We treat LLMs like athletes running a 100-meter dash, looking for the one that crosses the finish line first on every benchmark.

In the practical world of software engineering and business strategy, looking for the “best” LLM is a trap. It’s like asking, *“What is the best vehicle: a Ferrari or a Ford F-150?” *If you’re trying to impress a date, it’s the Ferrari. If you’re trying to move a couch, the Ferrari is useless.

The moment you stop asking “Which model is the smartest?” and start asking “Which model fits my specific constraints?”, the landscape changes completely.

The Chinchilla Scaling Law

The Chinchilla Scaling Law, introduced by DeepMind in 2022, is a key principle in training LLMs that emphasizes balancing model size with the amount of training data to achieve optimal performance under limited compute resources. At its core, it reveals that models perform best when trained with approximately 20 tokens per parameter, challenging earlier practices that prioritized larger models over sufficient data.

This can be used as a preliminary guide for scaling, and then complemented with dedicated benchmarks.

Finding the Right LLM: A Focused Approach

Press enter or click to view image in full size

To choose the best LLM for your project, start by evaluating the basics and then validate your choices with real-world performance metrics.

Step 1: Start with the Basics: Core Specifications

• Context Length: This refers to the maximum number of tokens (essentially words or word pieces) an LLM can process in a single interaction, including both input and output. It’s crucial for tasks involving long documents, conversations, or codebases, as longer contexts allow for better coherence and fewer breaks in processing.
• Parameters: While not a perfect measure, the number of parameters gives a rough idea of an LLM’s capacity. Smaller models (7B–13B parameters) are generally faster and more cost-effective, while larger models (70B+ parameters) typically excel at complex reasoning tasks.
• Pricing: Consider the cost per million tokens for both input and output, as well as infrastructure costs. Estimate your total cost by factoring in expected usage (tokens × queries per second) and comparing options like APIs versus self-hosted open-source models.

Step 2: Validating Performance with Results

• Benchmarks: Look at task-specific scores on standard evaluations like MMLU (general knowledge), HumanEval (coding), or Needle-in-Haystack (long-context recall). Choose benchmarks that align with your specific use case.
• Leaderboards: Aggregated rankings from platforms like **Artificial Analysis **or Vellum provide a broader overview of model performance across various tasks.
• Arenas: For applications where user experience and conversational quality are paramount, human preference scores from platforms like the LMSYS Chatbot Arena can be a strong indicator of a model’s suitability.
• LLM as a Judge: This is a method where a powerful LLM, such as GPT-4, acts as an automated evaluator. It assesses another model’s responses by comparing them to a reference answer using a specific grading rubric — checking for criteria such as correctness and coherence. This approach provides scalable, cost-effective, and human-like quality judgments.

Benchmarks

1. MMLU-Pro — Massive Multitask Language Understanding

Evaluates: Multi-task reasoning across 14 academic domains (e.g., math, physics, law). Features harder questions with more answer choices (10 vs. 4) to reduce guessing versus the standard MMLU. It specifically measures reasoning robustness and sensitivity to prompting.

2. LiveCodeBench

Evaluates: Real-world coding generalization. Implementation correctness, edge cases, and algorithmic reasoning on problems released after many models were trained. This ensures the AI is actually using logic to solve new challenges, rather than just reciting answers it memorized.

3. HLE — Humanity’s Last Exam

Evaluates: Threshold of human-expert competence in professional domains. Compares LLM performance directly to human professionals (e.g., in medicine) to gauge readiness for reliable, real-world deployment, not just relative model performance.

4. GPQA — Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A

Evaluates: Graduate-level science/math understanding. Consists of “Google-proof” questions that require deep conceptual reasoning and cannot be solved by simple web search recall, testing genuine mastery.

5. AIME — American Invitational Mathematics Examination

Evaluates: Complex, multi-step mathematical problem-solving. Based on the challenging American Invitational Math Exam, it tests long-horizon reasoning, symbolic manipulation, and avoidance of computational traps.

6. MuSR — Multi-step Soft Reasoning

Evaluates: Multi-step symbolic and logical reasoning chains. Focuses on compositional deduction, rule-following, and maintaining coherence across long chains of abstract inferences and constraints.

Limitations of Benchmarks

**Training Data Contamination — **Test questions can leak into training data, so models may memorize benchmark answers instead of demonstrating true reasoning.

Get Mohit Tayal’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

**Not Consistently Applied — **Results vary widely based on prompt style, evaluation methods (like multiple-choice formats), and judge biases.

**Too Narrow in Scope — **Many benchmarks cover specific tasks but miss real-world complexity — edge cases, domain workflows

**Hard to Measure Nuanced Reasoning — **Benchmarks often struggle to capture multi-step logic, judgment calls, and open-ended quality

**Saturation — **Top models quickly achieve near-perfect scores, causing benchmarks to become outdated

**Overfitting & Gaming — **Models can be overly tuned or “gamed” to perform well on specific benchmark patterns, resulting in models that fail on novel or unseen tasks.

Leaderboards

1. Artificial Analysis

A must-visit site(https://artificialanalysis.ai/) to compare 100+ LLMs side-by-side across key metrics like:

• Reasoning/Intelligence (e.g., MMLU-Pro, AIME-style math)
• Speed & latency (including output tokens/sec)
• Cost (e.g., $/million tokens)
• Context window

Press enter or click to view image in full size

2. Vellum

A curated leaderboard(https://www.vellum.ai/llm-leaderboard) focused on recent model versions (particularly newer, production-relevant releases).

Press enter or click to view image in full size

3. SEAL

Solves “evaluation gaming” and dataset contamination (memorization). https://scale.com/leaderboard

• Expert human judges outputs
• Private, unseen test sets (held-out) → prevents memorizing answers/contamination

Press enter or click to view image in full size

4. Hugging Face Open LLM Leaderboard

The Hugging Face Open LLM Leaderboard(https://huggingface.co/open-llm-leaderboard) has been archived, but it remains an excellent resource for running standardized, automated benchmarks across thousands of open models.

5. LiveBench

A benchmark(https://livebench.ai/#/) designed to eliminate data contamination by evaluating models on fresh, monthly-updated questions released after the training cutoff.

The Arena (formerly LMSYS)

The LLM Arena (Chatbot Arena) has become the industry standard for judging how Large Language Models perform in the real world. Unlike static code benchmarks, it relies on blind human evaluation to determine which models align best with human preferences. People can directly compare frontier models (e.g., GPT/Claude-class) and open-source models in head-to-head matchups.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Conclusion

Stop chasing a universal “state-of-the-art” model and focus on finding the specific architecture that aligns with your deployment constraints and performance metrics. A robust evaluation strategy combines static benchmarks with dynamic feedback from arenas and LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks to effectively cut through the hype. Ultimately, the “best” LLM isn’t necessarily the one with the highest parameter count, but the one that solves your specific problem most efficiently.