How We Compare AI Models

Our methodology for sourcing, normalizing, and presenting AI model data

Comparing AI models is challenging because providers use different terminology, pricing structures, and capability definitions. Logisync AI standardizes this information to enable fair, apples-to-apples comparisons. This page explains our methodology, data sources, and known limitations.

Data Sources

Official Provider APIs

Real-time

We integrate directly with provider APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc.) to fetch real-time pricing, model availability, and rate limits.

OpenAI APIAnthropic APIGoogle AI PlatformAzure OpenAI

Official Documentation

Daily

Model specifications, context windows, and capabilities are extracted from official documentation pages using automated scrapers.

Model cardsAPI documentationRelease notesTechnical papers

Benchmark Leaderboards

Weekly

Benchmark scores are aggregated from established leaderboards and academic evaluations to provide objective performance comparisons.

LMSYS Chatbot ArenaOpenLLM LeaderboardMMLUHumanEvalHellaSwag

Hardware Specifications

On release

GPU specifications are sourced from official manufacturer datasheets and verified against independent benchmarks.

NVIDIA datasheetsAMD specificationsThird-party benchmarks

Comparison Methodology

Pricing Normalization

  • All pricing is converted to USD per million tokens for fair comparison
  • We track both input and output token costs separately
  • Multi-platform pricing shows where each model is cheapest
  • Historical pricing data shows trends over time

Benchmark Aggregation

  • Scores are normalized to percentiles when max scores differ
  • We group benchmarks by category: reasoning, coding, math, knowledge
  • Higher-is-better vs lower-is-better is clearly indicated
  • We cite original sources for all benchmark data

GPU Requirements

  • VRAM estimates use industry-standard formulas based on parameter count
  • We calculate for multiple quantization levels (FP32, FP16, INT8, INT4)
  • KV cache and activation memory are included in estimates
  • Framework overhead (1.1-1.2×) is factored in

Capability Matrix

  • Capabilities are mapped to standardized categories across providers
  • We verify capabilities through API testing where possible
  • Input/output modalities are clearly separated
  • Deprecated or beta features are labeled accordingly

GPU VRAM Calculation Formula

Our GPU sizing calculator uses industry-standard formulas to estimate memory requirements:

// Total VRAM = (Weights + KV Cache + Activations) × Overhead
Weights = Parameters × Bytes_per_param
KV Cache = Parameters × 0.05 × (Context ÷ 1000) × Bytes_per_param
Activations = Weights × 0.12
// Bytes per param: FP32=4, FP16=2, INT8=1, INT4=0.5

This formula provides conservative estimates suitable for planning. Actual requirements may be lower with optimizations like FlashAttention or PagedAttention.

Known Limitations

Benchmark Variability

Benchmark scores can vary based on prompting strategies, evaluation versions, and sampling parameters. We use official reported scores when available.

Pricing Changes

Provider pricing can change without notice. While we update frequently, always verify current pricing on the official provider website before committing.

VRAM Estimates

GPU memory requirements are estimates based on parameter counts. Actual usage varies by framework, batch size, and optimization techniques.

Subjective Quality

Benchmark scores don't capture all aspects of model quality. Real-world performance depends on your specific use case and data.

Updates & Corrections

We continuously update our data and methodology. If you notice incorrect information or have suggestions for improvement, please let us know.

Last updated: February 2026