FutureSearch Logofuturesearch
  • Blog
  • Solutions
  • Research
  • Docs
  • Evals
  • Company
  • Get Researchers
FutureSearch Logo

General inquiry? You can reach us at hello@futuresearch.ai.

Company

Team & CareersPressPrivacy PolicyTerms of Service

Developers

SDK DocsAPI ReferenceCase StudiesGitHub

Follow Us

X (Twitter)@dschwarz26LinkedIn
FutureSearchdocs
Your research team
Installation
  • All install methods
  • Claude.ai
  • Claude Cowork
  • Claude Code
  • Web App
  • Python SDK
  • Skill
  • MCP Server
Reference
  • API Key
  • classify
  • dedupe
  • forecast
  • merge
  • rank
  • agent_map
  • screen
  • Progress Monitoring
  • Chaining Operations
Guides
  • LLM-Powered Data Labeling
  • Add a Column via Web Research
  • Classify and Label Rows
  • Deduplicate Training Data
  • Filter a Dataset Intelligently
  • Join Tables Without Shared Keys
  • Rank Data by External Metrics
  • Resolve Duplicate Entities
  • Scale Deduplication to 20K Rows
Case Studies
  • Deduplicate Contact Lists
  • Deduplicate CRM Records
  • Enrich Contacts with Company Data
  • Fuzzy Match Across Tables
  • Link Records Across Medical Datasets
  • LLM Cost vs. Accuracy
  • Merge Costs and Speed
  • Merge Thousands of Records
  • Multi-Stage Lead Qualification
  • Research and Rank Web Data
  • Run 10,000 LLM Web Research Agents
  • Score Cold Leads via Web Research
  • Score Leads from Fragmented Data
  • Screen 10,000 Rows
  • Screen Job Listings
  • Screen Stocks by Economic Sensitivity
  • Screen Stocks by Investment Thesis
FutureSearchby futuresearch
by futuresearch

LLM Cost vs. Accuracy

Claude Code can compare model benchmarks. But what if you need to compute Pareto frontiers across 26 model configurations, mapping cost, speed, and accuracy tradeoffs, to understand which models everyrow selects at each effort level?

Here, we analyze results from the Deep Research Bench (DRB), which evaluates models on agentic web-research tasks.

MetricValue
Models evaluated26
everyrow cost$0.00

This analysis doesn't use everyrow's MCP tools. It fetches benchmark data from the DRB public API and computes Pareto frontiers locally.

The cost Pareto frontier (7 models that achieve the best accuracy for their price):

ModelCostDRB Score
GPT-5.1 (low)$0.0400.428
Gemini 3 Flash (low)$0.0510.499
Gemini 3 Flash (minimal)$0.1030.504
Claude 4.6 Opus (low)$0.2430.531
Claude 4.5 Opus (low)$0.3120.549
Claude 4.6 Sonnet (high)$0.4560.549
Claude 4.6 Opus (high)$0.5530.550

everyrow's effort levels map directly to models on or near these frontiers:

Effort LevelModelDRB ScoreCost
LOWGemini 3 Flash (minimal)0.504$0.103
MEDIUMGemini 3 Flash (low)0.499$0.051
HIGHClaude 4.6 Opus (low)0.531$0.243

The bulk of accuracy (0.531 out of 0.550 max) comes at less than half the cost of the best model. Going from HIGH to the absolute best (Claude 4.6 Opus high) doubles the cost for only a 3.6% accuracy improvement.

This notebook analyzes model performance on the Deep Research Bench to understand everyrow's model selection and effort level mapping.

MetricValue
Models evaluated26
pip install everyrow requests pandas
import requests
import pandas as pd

url = "https://rguraxphqescakvvzmju.supabase.co/rest/v1/rpc/get_average_scores_by_model"
PUBLIC_API_KEY = "eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9..."

headers = {
    "apikey": PUBLIC_API_KEY,
    "authorization": f"Bearer {PUBLIC_API_KEY}",
    "content-type": "application/json",
}

response = requests.post(url, headers=headers, json={"min_num_of_distinct_instances": 150})
df = pd.DataFrame(response.json())

To override everyrow's default model selection:

from everyrow.ops import agent_map
from everyrow.task import LLM

result = await agent_map(
    task="Find each company's latest funding round",
    input=companies_df,
    effort_level=None,
    llm=LLM.CLAUDE_4_6_OPUS_HIGH,
    iteration_budget=10,
    include_research=True,
)
Effort LevelModelDRB ScoreCostRuntime
LOWGemini 3 Flash (minimal)0.504$0.103116s
MEDIUMGemini 3 Flash (low)0.499$0.05196s
HIGHClaude 4.6 Opus (low)0.531$0.24373s

Claude 4.6 Opus (high) achieves the top score (0.550) but at 2x the cost and 2.5x the runtime of the HIGH effort level. For most tasks, the HIGH effort level captures the bulk of accuracy at a fraction of the cost.