Skip to content
Beyond Prompt AI Studio
Comparing AI models properly

The practical test: agentic benchmarks, time horizons, and how to compare models yourself

The previous modules showed where individual measurement methods run into their limits. This final module closes the loop: with a new, agent-specific approach and a practical guide to using all of it for your own comparisons.

Assessment as of: July 2026 – research moves fast, this assessment may change.

Four examples – worth remembering

Try it yourself: your own comparison process

Step 1

Categorize the task

Which of the five axes from "Why 'Model A beats Model B' ..." matters for your specific use case?

Why static benchmarks don't capture agentic behavior

A classic benchmark checks a single answer to a single question. An AI agent, by contrast, plans multiple steps, calls tools, checks their outputs, revises its approach, and has to keep going even after a setback. Whether the final answer is correct says little about whether the agent got lost along the way, picked the wrong tool and recovered, or got stuck in an unnoticed loop.

METR's time horizon: a new approach

The research organization METR instead measures how long a task would take a human that a model can still solve autonomously at a given success rate – a model's "time horizon". The numbers are remarkably concrete: GPT-2 sat at about 2 seconds, Claude 3.7 Sonnet at around 50 minutes, o3 at nearly 2 hours, and Opus 4.6 already reached about 12 hours (at a 50% success rate). For roughly six years, this time horizon has doubled on average about every seven months.

The portfolio approach instead of a single benchmark

Every module in this course points to the same recommendation: no single benchmark type is enough. A solid comparison triangulates several sources – an objectively-correct benchmark that fits the task (module 3), a human-preference ranking read alongside its confidence intervals (module 4), an agentic benchmark or time horizon score where relevant, and your own current test with real requests from your own use case – precisely because a public benchmark can be contaminated or saturated (modules 3 and 6).

How Beyond Prompt applies this itself

This website's own comparison section (see "Methodology" at /vergleiche/methodik) follows the same principle: performance criteria rest, where possible, on independent sources like Artificial Analysis or SWE-bench rather than pure vendor claims – and are checked regularly against their source, so outdated values don't quietly stay in place.

Why this matters to you as a decision-maker

The five steps in the interaction below sum up this entire course into a repeatable process you can apply to any future vendor claim – no matter which model is being marketed as "the best" at the moment.

Key takeaways

  • Static single-answer benchmarks don't capture how an agent plans, uses tools, and recovers from errors.
  • METR's time horizon measures the longest task a model can still solve autonomously – from about 2 seconds (GPT-2) to about 12 hours (Opus 4.6), doubling roughly every seven months.
  • No single benchmark type is enough for a solid comparison – a portfolio of several sources plus your own held-out test is the recommended approach.
  • Beyond Prompt's own comparison pages rest on independent sources rather than pure vendor claims for exactly this reason.
  • This module's five steps can be applied to any future vendor claim.

How Beyond Prompt methodically compares AI tools

Quick check: did it land?

1 / 3

What does METR's time horizon measure, according to this module?

Want to build your own solid comparison process?