Decoding AI Agent Models: The Ultimate Comparative Analysis

AI agents are rapidly transforming the technological landscape, becoming indispensable tools for tackling complex challenges, enhancing decision-making, and streamlining workflows. This blog post presents an in-depth comparative analysis of 20 cutting-edge AI agent models, evaluating their performance across diverse tasks and highlighting their unique strengths and weaknesses.

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 agents 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

Here, 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

Here, 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: Good at summarizing, but the process was not clearly shown.
14. Grok Beta AI Agent: While it was accurate, it was hard to see the internal process.
15. Gemini 1.5 Flash AI Agent: The summary was accurate while also adhering to the word limit.
16. Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: The summary was concise but it had a high readability score.
17. Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental: While concise it failed to fully capture all of the key elements of the text.
18. GPT-4o AI Agent: Detailed summary, but it did not adhere to the word limit.
19. Llama 3.2 3B: The readability score was higher than other performing models.
20. o1 Mini AI Agent: Demonstrated a good understanding of the text, and also followed the instructions well.

Task 4: Comparison

In this task, we evaluated the models’ abilities to analyze and compare the environmental impacts of electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen-powered cars:

1. o1 Preview: very well compared with proper format.
2. GPT-o1 Mini AI Agent: Well structured and organized approach.
3. Claude 3 Haiku: A detailed comparison, and also maintained the formatting requirements.
4. Claude 3.5 Sonnet: Ability to synthesize information effectively.
5. GPT-4 Vision Preview AI Agent: Detailed comparison with clear formatting.
6. Mistral Large: effective and accurate.
7. Gemini 1.5 Pro: Effectively synthesized information, with a well structured final output.
8. GPT 4o mini: Clear and understandable structure, underperformed in reasoning.
9. Mistral 7B: Clear and structured, with a good grasp of the prompt and its complexities.
10. Mistral 8x7B: Detailed and accurate, while also following all instructions.
11. Gemini 1.5 Flash AI Agent: Well organized while also providing a detailed comparison.
12. GPT-4o AI Agent: Strong ability to follow the prompts, with well detailed results.
13. Llama 3.2 3B: A balanced and detailed analysis.
14. Claude 2: Accurate information and a good grasp of the task.
15. Claude 3: nothing to write home about but its ok.
16. Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: Comprehensive but it had a lack of information on the internal thought process.
17. Llama 3.2 1B: Well structured but its internal thought process was not as clear.
18. Grok Beta AI Agent: Provided a good overview, but also had a lack of transparency.
19. Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental: Detailed information, but did not compare from multiple lenses.
20. GPT-3.5 Turbo AI Agent: The model struggled to follow formatting requirements.

Task 5: Creative Writing

For this task, we evaluated the models’ abilities to generate creative and engaging narratives:

1. GPT-4o AI Agent: Used descriptive language to create a vivid and engaging story.
2. GPT-4 Vision Preview AI Agent: Strong creative style and a good ability to follow instructions.
3. Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: Engaging narrative that painted a very detailed futuristic setting.
4. GPT 4o mini: Above average writing structure with at a brilliant cost.
5. Claude 3 Haiku: Followed formatting well and created a high quality narrative.
6. Mistral 8x7B: Well written story with a clear creative approach.
7. o1 Preview: first cases of AI over thinking.
8. Mistral Large: effective and accurate.
9. Llama 3.2 3B: The narrative was creative, and also explored the different themes of the prompt well.
10. Gemini 1.5 Pro: Well structured and engaging narrative.
11. Claude 3.5 Sonnet: Good creative ability that was also aligned with the given instructions.
12. Claude 3: Clear ability to generate engaging content.
13. o1 mini: Very average story telling.
14. Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental: The story was creative and met most of the requirements of the prompt.
15. Llama 3.2 1B: Created a well written story that also met all of the set requirements.
16. Grok Beta AI Agent: The narrative was creative, but it did not show any information about its internal processes.
17. Mistral 7B: Engaged well with the prompt and also had a high level of creativity, but it lacked description compared to the higher performing models.
18. GPT-3.5 Turbo AI Agent: Good understanding of the creative writing task but was not as descriptive as other higher scoring models.
19. Claude 2: Very limited creativity.
20. Gemini 1.5 Flash AI Agent: Followed instructions and was creative but its writing style was not as engaging as other performing models.

Final Ranking of AI Agent Models

Here is the overall ranking of the models based on their performance as AI agents, taking into account not just their output but also their thought process, strategic planning, tool usage, and adaptability:

1. Claude 3.5 Sonnet: High accuracy, clear strategic thinking and consistently high quality output.
2. GPT-4 Vision Preview AI Agent: Strong creative writing and performed well across all other areas.
3. Mistral 8x7B: High proficiency with well organized thoughts, and a strong adaptability across the tasks.
4. GPT-o1 Mini AI Agent: Demonstrated a good ability to use tools and was also highly adaptable to new information.
5. GPT 4o Mini AI Agent: Strong in all areas, with particularly high capabilities in summarization and calculation.
6. Mistral 7B: A strong all rounder, with high abilities in problem solving and calculation.
7. Claude 3 Haiku: A clear ability to follow instructions and also demonstrated an understanding of the different task requirements.
8. Llama 3.2 3B: A versatile model that performed well in creative writing and also had a strong ability in many of the different areas.
9. Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental: Strong abilities in research, creative writing, and also information synthesis.
10. Gemini 1.5 Flash AI Agent: Consistently performed well and was able to follow instructions well, demonstrating a good understanding of the different prompts.
11. GPT-4o AI Agent: Demonstrated good adaptability with a clear understanding of the different task requirements.
12. GPT-3.5 Turbo AI Agent: Followed instructions well and generated high quality outputs, but it lacked the higher levels of reasoning as seen in the higher rated models.
13. Claude 3: While it showed its potential, it did not demonstrate the inner workings and strategies that made the higher scoring models stand out.
14. Claude 2:  This model was accurate and well written but it was limited by a lack of transparency in its thought processes.
15. Mistral Large AI Agent: A good performer, but it did not demonstrate its thought process and also struggled in the calculation based task.
16. Grok Beta AI Agent: While having shown its capabilities, its approach was not very strategic and it struggled to complete some of the set tasks, making it lower in this overall ranking.
17. Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B: The model produced high quality outputs, but also demonstrated a repetitive approach, and a lack of internal thought process.
18. Gemini 1.5 Pro AI Agent: The model had a good understanding of the set tasks, but it struggled to show its internal thought processes.
19. o1 Preview AI Agent: While the model performed well, its internal thought processes were not readily apparent, making it lower than some of the other performers.
20. Llama 3.2 1B: The model was able to follow instructions, but its outputs were inconsistent and it also struggled to clearly demonstrate its decision making process.

Final Overall Assessment of AI Agent Models

This table provides a detailed comparative analysis of 20 AI agent models based on their performance across five tasks. The models are ranked based on their ability to act as a proficient AI agent, taking into consideration not only their output quality, but also their thought process, strategic planning, and adaptability.

Model Name	Content Generation	Problem Solving and Calculation	Summarization	Creative Writing	Comparison	Explanation
GPT-4o AI Agent (Original)	9.2	7.1	8.1	9.5	8.9	Excellent creative style and a well structured thought process.
GPT-4o Mini AI Agent Rating (Turn 2)	9.1	7.6	9.1	9.1	8.8	Performed well at summarization and was adaptable to new situations and information.
GPT-o1 Mini AI Agent Rating (Turn 3)	8.8	8.2	8.6	9.0	9.2	Strategic approach to problem solving, and adaptability during research.
o1 Preview AI Agent Rating (Turn 4)	8.4	7.9	8.8	9.0	8.9	Strong in summarization with a clear and well organized approach.
GPT-4 Vision Preview AI Agent Rating (Turn 5)	8.9	7.8	9.1	9.1	8.8	Showed a great level of creative writing and summarization skills.
GPT-3.5 Turbo AI Agent Rating (Turn 6)	7.9	6.8	9.2	8.9	8.8	Followed instructions well and was also accurate and concise.
Grok Beta AI Agent Rating (Turn 7)	7.5	5.9	8.2	8.8	8.7	Limited thought process with some issues in tool usage.
Llama 3.2 1B AI Agent Rating (Turn 8)	8.1	7.1	8.9	8.8	8.9	Demonstrated a clear understanding of the prompts and also had a strong level of adaptability.
Llama 3.2 3B AI Agent Rating (Turn 9)	8.3	7.3	9.1	8.9	8.9	Good in all areas while also having strong creative writing abilities.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet AI Agent Rating (Turn 10)	9.3	8.1	9.1	9.0	9	Demonstrated a strong level of reasoning and was also very accurate.
Claude 3 AI Agent Rating (Turn 11)	8.0	7.8	8.8	8.7	8.9	Strong strategic reasoning, but a lack of transparency in its internal process.
Claude 3 Haiku AI Agent Rating (Turn 12)	8.7	7.9	9.0	9	9	Had a high level of accuracy, with a strong approach to strategic planning.
Claude 2 AI Agent Rating (Turn 13)	8.2	6.9	8.8	8.9	8.8	Had a good understanding of the set requirements.
Mistral 7B AI Agent Rating (Turn 14)	8.9	8.1	9.1	8.8	8.9	Strong problem-solving abilities, and was also very accurate.
Mistral 8x7B AI Agent Rating (Turn 15)	9.4	6.9	9.1	8.7	9.0	Very well structured thoughts and also a good ability to synthesize information.
Mistral Large AI Agent Rating (Turn 16)	7.6	7.8	8.9	8.8	8.8	Strong ability to perform the tasks and follow instructions, but had a lack of visible thought processes.
Gemini 1.5 Flash AI Agent Rating (Turn 17)	7.8	6.9	9	9	8.8	Well structured and also followed the given instructions well.
Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental AI Agent Rating (Turn 18)	8.6	7.4	8	9.1	8.8	High versatility and a good understanding of the set tasks.
Gemini 1.5 Flash 8B AI Agent Rating (Turn 19)	8.1	6.9	9	9	8.9	Creative abilities, but a lack of transparency into it’s thought process.
Gemini 1.5 Pro AI Agent Rating (Turn 20)	8.5	8.2	9.1	9	9	Consistent results with a strategic approach.

Conclusion

This comprehensive analysis of 20 AI agent models highlights the rapid advancements in AI technologies and the diverse approaches that each model takes to problem solving. All of the models have demonstrated capabilities that would be useful in a range of applications, while also highlighting the need for continued research in this field. It has been very interesting to see how these models approach different challenges and also how they all stack up against each other.