Decoding AI Agent Models: The Ultimate Comparative Analysis

Methodology

We tested 20 different AI agent models on five core tasks, each designed to probe different capabilities:

• Content Generation: Producing a detailed article on project management fundamentals.
• Problem-Solving: Performing calculations related to revenue and profit.
• Summarization: Condensing key findings from a complex article.
• Comparison: Analyzing the environmental impact of electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles.
• Creative Writing: Crafting a futuristic story centered on electric vehicles.

Our analysis focused on both the quality of the output and the agent’s thought process, evaluating its ability to plan, reason, adapt, and effectively utilize available tools. We’ve ranked the models based on their performance as an AI agent, with greater importance being given to their thought processes and strategies.

AI Agent Model Performance – A Task by Task Analysis

Task 1: Content Generation

All twenty models demonstrated a strong ability to generate high-quality, informative articles. However, the following ranked list takes into consideration each agent’s internal thought processes and how they arrived at their final output:

1. Gemini 1.5 Pro: Strong understanding of the prompt, strategic approach to research, and well-organized output.
2. Claude 3.5 Sonnet: Strong approach to planning with a clear and concise and accessible output.
3. Mistral 8x7B: Strong tool selection and a clear and well structured output.
4. Mistral 7B: Strategic research and a well formatted final output.
5. GPT-4o AI Agent (Original): Strong in its tool selection and demonstrated an adaptable approach to research.
6. Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: High quality output but a lack of transparency in the internal processes.
7. Claude 3 Haiku: Strong performance, with a good understanding of the prompt.
8. GPT-4 Vision Preview AI Agent: Performed well, with a high quality output.
9. GPT-o1 Mini AI Agent: Adaptable and iterative, showing good use of tools.
10. Llama 3.2 3B: Good creative writing and a detailed output, however, the inner process was not shown.
11. Claude 3: Demonstrates its iterative approach while adapting to the instructions, but the internal thoughts were not shown.
12. Claude 2: Demonstrated good writing skills while also showing its understanding of the prompt.
13. GPT-3.5 Turbo AI Agent: Followed the instructions and adhered to the formatting guidelines, but it lacked internal process.
14. Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental: The model generated a well written output, but demonstrated a repetitive process.
15. Grok Beta AI Agent: Strategic tool usage, but struggled with repetitive loops.
16. Gemini 1.5 Flash AI Agent: The agent used a logical approach but had a repetitive thought process.
17. Mistral Large AI Agent: The output was well structured, but its internal thoughts were not transparent.
18. o1 Preview AI Agent: The model performed well, but it lacked any transparency in its thought processes.
19. GPT 4o mini AI Agent: While the model had a good output, its internal processes were not shown.
20. Llama 3.2 1B: The model performed well but had a lack of insight into its internal processes, and did not demonstrate a unique approach.

Task 2: Problem-Solving and Calculation

We assessed the models’ mathematical capabilities and problem-solving strategies:

1. Claude 3.5 Sonnet: High accuracy, strategic thinking, and a well-explained solution.
2. Mistral 7B: Clear, accurate solutions, and demonstrated strategic thinking.
3. GPT-4 Vision Preview AI Agent: Correct understanding and accurate calculations.
4. Claude 3 Haiku: Effective calculation and clear explanations.
5. o1 Preview AI Agent: Showed ability to break down calculations into multiple steps.
6. Mistral Large AI Agent: Accurate calculations with a well-presented final answer.
7. o1 mini: Strategic thinking and a solid understanding of the required mathematics.
8. Gemini 1.5 Pro: Detailed and accurate calculations and was also well formatted.
9. Llama 3.2 1B: Broke down the calculations well, but had some errors with formatting.
10. GPT-4o AI Agent (Original): Performed most of the calculations well, and also had a clear and logical breakdown of the task.
11. GPT-4o Mini AI Agent: Performed the calculations, but had errors in the final answers and also struggled to format the output effectively.
12. Claude 3: Clear approach to calculation, but not much beyond that.
13. Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental: Accurate basic calculations, but some errors with the final output.
14. GPT-3.5 Turbo AI Agent: Basic calculations were accurate, but it had issues with strategy and accuracy of the final answers.
15. Gemini 1.5 Flash AI Agent: Had some calculation errors relating to the additional units needed.
16. Mistral 8x7B: Mostly accurate calculations, but it did not fully explore the different possible solutions.
17. Claude 2: Accurate with initial calculations, but it had strategic issues and also had errors in the final solution.
18. Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: Some errors with the final solution.
19. Grok Beta AI Agent: Could not complete the task fully and failed to provide a full output.
20. Llama 3.2 3B: Calculation errors and the presentation was also incomplete.

Task 3: Summarization

We evaluated the models’ abilities to extract key information and produce concise summaries:

1. GPT-4o Mini AI Agent: Very good at summarizing the key points while also sticking to the word limit.
2. Gemini 1.5 Pro: Good at summarizing the provided text, while also sticking to the required word limit.
3. o1 Preview AI Agent: Concise and well structured summarization.
4. Claude 3 Haiku: Effectively summarized the text, and also stuck to the set parameters.
5. Mistral 7B: Accurately summarized while also adhering to the word limit.
6. Mistral 8x7B: Effectively condensed the information while also sticking to the set parameters.
7. GPT-4 Vision Preview AI Agent: Very accurate summary of the text provided.
8. GPT-3.5 Turbo AI Agent: Good ability to summarize text, while also highlighting all of the important aspects.
9. Llama 3.2 1B: Concise and well structured summary.
10. Claude 3.5 Sonnet: A concise summary while also maintaining the formatting requests.
11. Claude 2: A concise summary while also effectively understanding the provided text.
12. Claude 3: Condensed the information into a concise output.
13. Mistral Large AI Agent: Summarized the text well, but did not fully adhere to the word limit.