For each workload, which model meets spec
We compute each category's ranking from stated specifications and publish the calculation on the same page. A figure with no supporting document does not enter the output, and every page carries its own last-inspection date.
- ranking computed, not opinion-driven
- every figure carries a source record and a timestamp
- an Iran-access status column
How a ranking in this section is calculated
Three inputs go into one calculation and a table comes out. All three are visible on the page itself, and the fourth input is deliberately left unconnected.
-
1The criteria
Each category has its own criteria, and they are written on that same page.
-
2The weights
Every weight is visible. Change a weight and the table recomputes.
-
3A source per number
From the maker, or from the benchmark own leaderboard. Unverified stays unverified.
-
A cell with no source
Scoring zero and being unverified are two different things, and they stay two different things in the table. This input never enters the calculation and the cell stays empty.
-
The ranking calculation
Change a weight and the table recomputes. There is no manual position field in this section at all.
-
The ranking table
The arithmetic sits beside the table, plus an access from Iran column with the date it was checked.
The rankings here are temporary, and that is correct: any new release can move the table.
Which workload are you assigning to AI
Each workload carries a ranking table whose criteria and weights are documented on that same page.
If you already know the specification you need and just want the numbers: Full model table
Why this page's architecture differs from other lists
The ranking calculation runs in the open, on the page
Each category has its own specifications, each specification carries a weight, and every weight is visible. Change one weight and the table recomputes. There is no field called "manual position" anywhere in this module, so no ranking shifts without a traceable change.
We log missing data as missing data
If a figure cannot be verified against the vendor's source or the benchmark's own leaderboard, the cell stays empty and is tagged "unverified". Scoring zero and being unverified are two distinct failure modes, and the table keeps them as two distinct values.
A column that only direct measurement can fill
For every tool we record whether it is reachable from Iran, whether card payment functions, and where it does not, what alternative actually works. We run this check ourselves from an Iranian connection and log the date it was run.
One page, two independent language builds
Every page ships a Persian build and an English build, and each is authored separately rather than translated. The facts and the figures match across both; the sentences do not.
The vendor index
Each vendor has three layers: the products you sign in to, the model families, and the versions.
Latest logged changes
- The Claude Fable 5.1 record was logged; deployment date 1 September 2026. Audit result: the base price parameter is unchanged, $10 in and $50 out, matching Fable 5 exactly. The only parameter modified in Anthropic pricing table is the cache read, from one dollar to twenty-five cents. Anthropic flags this in a footnote under that same table as an exception in the pricing structure, because the cache multiplier is fixed at 0.1x input price across the entire Claude line and drops to 0.025x only for Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1. The benchmark jump is not uniform either: agentic scientific research moves from 24.7 to 52.6, terminal coding from 42.0 to 55.8, CursorBench only from 70.5 to 73.4. The model was not entered into any ranking table on this site; this is an operational decision: the coding rubric allocates 70 of 100 weight units to two Arena leaderboards, and this one-day-old model has not yet been scored on either, so entering it into the category would have produced only an unranked row under the table. Mythos 5.1 was added to the catalogue and Fable 5 was moved to legacy status.
- The translation category was deployed, the first of tranche two. Audit result: two parameters have come apart here. The model that registers your language by name in its own list is not procurable, and the model that is downloadable and runnable does not name your language. Command A Translate is the only model whose maker both classifies it as a translation model and lists all four of this site languages in one 23-language list; Llama 4, which carries a commercial licence, ships a closed twelve-language list with neither Persian nor Turkish on it. Licence-openness weight in this category is 30 of 100, a figure not repeated in any other category, because in Iran exactly that hosted API is the link that is down. One criterion was tested and then removed: context window, because min-max normalisation with a floor of 8,000 and a ceiling of ten million reported a thirty-two fold difference as 0.4 against 0.2. Translation
- The Cohere record was logged; a maker that until this deployment held only a few rows in the catalogue. Audit result: Cohere is the only maker in this reference that registers Persian item by item in a model language list, in Command A Translate and in Aya Expanse 32B, and all three access routes to that Persian are blocked separately. The translation model carries no published price, the open-weight model holds a CC BY-NC licence meaning commercial use is prohibited, and the model licensed under Apache 2.0 with commercial use permitted does not cover Persian at all. Separately, Cohere own commercial agreement registers Iran by name in its Restricted Location definition, differing from every other maker practice here: the others omit Iran from a list, Cohere enters it explicitly. Cohere
- The Amazon record was logged. Two findings from this audit: first, the Nova specification table prints "+200" in the Supported Languages cell, and that cell footnote lists fifteen languages; Arabic and Turkish are among the fifteen and Persian is not. Same pattern as ElevenLabs, this time surfacing at footnote level. Second, Nova access capacity is a data-center list rather than a country list, and neither list registers a Middle East region; the nearest deployment point for a Nova model is Mumbai or Frankfurt. Nova pricing was also not recorded, because the Bedrock pricing page renders its figures in JavaScript. Amazon
A direct note on this page's operating limits
We built this reference because our own clients keep asking which tool to select for a given workload, and the answer shifts every quarter. So the rankings here are provisional by design: any new release can move the table.
What you will not find on this page is an account for sale. We sell no subscriptions and no placement in any table. If work needs doing with these tools, the corresponding service is documented separately on the site.
The demand for this topic, measured across four markets
AI image generation runs 823,000 searches a month and the click costs $0.85. Enormous attention, almost no commercial value per visitor. That single ratio explains why so many AI tools struggle to convert traffic into revenue.
| Term entered | Monthly search volume | Click cost | Ranking difficulty | User goal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ai image generator | 823,000 | $0.85 | 93 | Informational |
| ai video generator | 165,000 | $1.71 | 91 | Commercial |
| ai chatbot | 90,500 | $0.68 | 95 | Commercial |
| ai tools | 27,100 | $3.89 | 91 | Informational + Commercial |
| best ai tools | 6,600 | $4.57 | 73 | Commercial |
Data from Semrush, US database, retrieved 27 August 2026. Search volumes decay over time; read anything more than three months old as a trend line, not a fixed figure.
AI models and tools, scored against a published rubric.
One rule throughout: See fuses onto a word and makes a single new one, never two words side by side. Exactly as See and commerce became Seemerce.
Neighbouring names
- SEO and growth category SeeGain
- Hosting and stack category SeeStack
- Brand and content category SeeTopic
- SEO course SeeLesson
- Site speed course SeeTempo
- Web design course SeeCraft
- Chat and assistants SeeChat