This is a submission for the Kaggle Benchmarking Challenge

What I Benchmarked

The short version

I build InsightTrack, an open-source web analytics
platform. It has an AI analyst called Pulse. You ask "why did traffic to /pricing drop last
week?", and Pulse picks the right tools, reads the numbers, and answers in plain English.

Pulse needs a language model behind it. I wanted to choose that model with evidence, not vibes, so I
turned Pulse's real job into a benchmark: 480 questions, graded automatically, with answers
that come from InsightTrack's own code.

The problem: an AI analyst can be confidently wrong

An analytics assistant isn't a chatbot for fun facts. People act on what it says: they rewrite pages,
pause campaigns, or stop worrying. When it's wrong, it's wrong in one of two costly ways:

1. It invents a reason. Traffic moves for a boring reason (a holiday, a newsletter, plain noise), and the assistant confidently blames Google rankings. You spend a day fixing SEO that was never broken.
2. It misses a real problem. Traffic falls by half, and the assistant says "nothing significant happened". You find out a month later.

Both are worse than saying "I don't know". A useful analyst needs three habits that don't show up on
general AI leaderboards:

• Restraint: saying "this is noise" or "the data doesn't show that" when that's the truth.
• Rule-following on numbers: applying thresholds exactly. A 15% change on 6 visitors is not a trend.
• Reading real tool output: the exact fields, rounding and formats a product actually returns, not textbook examples.

Why general benchmarks don't answer this

Public benchmarks are excellent at telling you which model knows more maths, writes better code, or
calls functions correctly. But choosing a model for a product is a product decision, and it has
three questions they can't answer for you:

• Accuracy on my job: my tools, my data formats, my database dialect (DuckDB, not PostgreSQL).
• The kind of mistakes: a model that is wrong 10% of the time by saying "not sure" is safer than one that is wrong 5% of the time by making things up.
• Cost: is the expensive model worth it, or does a model at a tenth of the price do the same job?

The only way to answer those is to test models on the actual work. That's what this benchmark does.

What's in it

InsightTrack Analyst Bench has 480 auto-graded cases across four tasks. The first three are Pulse's job today; the fourth, SQL, is the step Pulse doesn't take yet: writing a query when no built-in tool fits.

Each task has 80 standard + 40 hard cases. The hard ones are where careless reasoning shows:

• changes that land exactly on a threshold (a 15.0% drop)
• several keywords pointing in different directions
• pages that stopped ranking entirely
• lookalike domains: getsite.com is a different site, but www.site.com is yours

One case, step by step

Here's what a diagnosis question looks like, simplified:

• Weekly pageviews: … 495, 517, 347. The last week dropped by 170 views, or 33%.
• Google, before: the page ranked #3 for its keyword.
• Google, now: it ranks #5. Nothing else changed.
• The rules are all in the prompt. A change counts only if it's at least 15% and at least 20 views. A 1–2 place rank move is normal jitter, never a cause.

The correct answer: the drop is real, but search didn't cause it. In InsightTrack's terms,
{"significant": true, "direction": "drop", "causes": ["unexplained_by_serp"]}. The tempting wrong
answer is "your rank dropped". A model that says that sends the user to fix SEO that isn't broken.

That's the heart of the benchmark: can the model tell a real cause from a coincidence?

Why the answers can be trusted

No LLM grades another LLM:

• Diagnosis: the answer key is InsightTrack's own correlation engine, ported to Python. A test runs the original JavaScript on every case plus 1,500 random ones and fails on any disagreement.
• SQL: answers are graded by executing the model's query, so two different but correct queries both pass.
• Everything else: answers are computed from the same data the model sees.
• Data: all synthetic (5,940 events, 2,494 sessions), with no real person's data, and the whole set rebuilds byte-for-byte.

Every grader also labels how a model was wrong: invented a cause, called a real change noise,
made up a number, refused an answerable question, used a tool that doesn't exist. That turns a
score into something you can act on.

Who this helps

• Developers building AI features on analytics or BI data. You face the same choice I did. These results, and the failure types above, show what to expect from each class of model.
• Anyone picking a model on a budget. The results put a price on accuracy: where paying more buys a lot, and where it buys nothing.
• People who build and evaluate models. Most tests reward knowing things. This one rewards not claiming things, which is harder to measure and matters in real products.
• InsightTrack's users. Pulse gets its model and its safety checks from evidence instead of guesswork.

Models Tested

All models ran through Kaggle's model proxy on the same task version. I picked them in pairs, so each
comparison answers a practical question:

• Frontier vs. cheap, same company: Claude Sonnet 5 vs. Claude Haiku 4.5, and Gemini 3.7 Flash vs. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite. How much do you lose by saving money?
• Reasoning on vs. off, same model: Grok 4.20 with and without reasoning. Does "thinking" change the answer?
• The cheapest option: GPT-5.4 nano. Is "good enough" good enough?
• OpenAI's flagship: GPT-5.5, as a reference point.

Findings

1. Tool choice is solved. Diagnosis is where models split.

Every model picked the right tool at least 93% of the time. So "can it call tools?" is no longer the
interesting question for an analytics assistant. The real question is whether it understands what the
numbers mean. On diagnosis, the top three models score 100%, GPT-5.5 scores 96.7%, and every cheaper
model scores between 20% and 49%.

2. Same model, reasoning on vs. off: 100% vs. 35%

Grok 4.20 with reasoning got every diagnosis case right. The same model without reasoning got
35%. It lost all 16 multi-cause cases, and 9 of the 12 decoys. Nothing else in the results moved this
much. If your assistant answers "why did X change?", reasoning isn't a nice-to-have.

3. Cheap models fail in two opposite ways

The alarmist. Without reasoning, Grok invented a search cause 34 times. In one case, traffic
rose from 437 to 538 views while the page slipped from #3 to #5 on Google. The prompt says plainly
that a 1–2 place move is normal jitter and never a cause. Grok answered:

{"significant": true, "direction": "spike", "causes": ["rank_drop"]}

It blamed a rank drop for a traffic rise. The right answer was unexplained_by_serp: this change
didn't come from search.

The shrugger. GPT-5.4 nano went the other way, calling real changes noise 73 times. A page fell
from 209 to 110 views (−47%) right after sliding from #14 to #26 on Google. Nano answered:

{"significant": false, "direction": null, "causes": []}

For an analytics product, this is the dangerous one. An alarmist wastes your afternoon. A shrugger
tells you everything is fine while your traffic halves.

4. Mixed signals break every cheaper model: 0 of 8

In the hard cases, one keyword lost rank while another gained, and traffic fell. The correct answer
names only the loss, since a gain can't explain a drop. Flash-Lite, Haiku, Grok without reasoning, and
nano all scored 0 out of 8. Haiku, for instance, blamed the drop on ai_citation_gained, a rule the
prompt says applies only when traffic rises. Real pages rank for many keywords at once, so this is
the everyday case, not an edge case.

5. Reading data: the cheaper models refuse and invent

On data reading, all 7 models correctly said not_available on the 24 standard questions the data
couldn't answer. The traps in the hard set split them:

• Made-up numbers: asked for the total unique visitors across a list of pages (impossible, because the same person can visit several pages), nano confidently answered 9,149.
• Refused answerable questions: nano did this 13 times, and the other cheaper models 5–7 times each. They answered "not available" when the answer took one calculation.

A model that can't tell "I can't compute this" from "this can't be computed" isn't safe in either direction.

6. The SQL failures were habits, not logic

Gemini 3.7 Flash scored 0/7 on JSON questions, and nearly everything else it got right. Every time,
it wrote:

WHERE properties->>'name' = 'signup'

That's fine in PostgreSQL. In DuckDB, ->> binds more loosely than =, so it parses as
properties ->> ('name' = 'signup') and crashes. One pair of parentheses fixes it. It looks like a
habit carried over from PostgreSQL, which is far more common in examples than DuckDB.

Claude Haiku corrects itself mid-answer. In 9 SQL replies it wrote a query, then "Wait, let me
reconsider…", then a second query. The prompt asks for the query only, so the grader takes the first
one. In 8 of those 9 cases, the second query was right. Graded on its last query, Haiku's SQL score would
be 93.3% instead of 86.7%. That's a real cost of thinking out loud inside a tool call: whatever sits
between your model and your database reads the first answer.

7. GPT-5.5's only misses came from my prompt

GPT-5.5 made exactly four mistakes on diagnosis, and all four are the same one. Each time, a page slid
just past #10 (#10 to #11 twice, #10 to #12 once, #9 to #11 once): it fell off page one, so the
answer is page_one_exit. GPT-5.5 said
unexplained_by_serp every time.

Rereading my prompt, I found two rules that clash:

• page_one_exit: "position 1–10 before; now below 10".
• "Moves of 1–2 places are normal jitter and are never a cause."

I meant the jitter rule to cover rank_drop and rank_gain. GPT-5.5 took "never" literally. Claude
Sonnet 5, Gemini 3.7 Flash and Grok with reasoning all read the intent. Neither reading is careless.
One model follows the letter of an instruction and others follow its spirit, and that's worth knowing
about any model you give rules to. It's also a reminder that a benchmark's prompt is code too.
The next version will say "never counts as rank_drop or rank_gain", and I'm reporting the
score as it stands rather than quietly fixing it.

8. Value: Gemini 3.7 Flash is the sweet spot

Gemini 3.7 Flash reaches 97.7% at about half the cost of Claude Sonnet 5. GPT-5.5 was the most
expensive run ($3.23) and still finished just behind Sonnet. Below the top four there's a cliff: no model
under $0.65 per run scored above 81%, and all of them fell apart on diagnosis.

So what will power Pulse?

Gemini 3.7 Flash by default. It scored 100% on the three tasks that are about judgement, at half the
price of the most accurate model. Its one weakness is fixable in code: wrap ->> comparisons in
parentheses before running any generated SQL.

Claude Sonnet 5 as the fallback for anything SQL-heavy, since it was perfect everywhere, and
cheaper than GPT-5.5 for the same job.

No cheaper model for diagnosis. An assistant that shrugs at a 47% drop costs more than it saves.

The benchmark also backed a design choice InsightTrack already makes. In the product, Pulse's
explain_traffic_change tool works out significance and causes in code, and the model only
explains the result in plain English. These results show why: left to do that reasoning alone, every
cheaper model got it wrong at least half the time.

What this means if you're building an AI assistant

These lessons carry over to any assistant that works with numbers:

1. Compute, don't ask. Anything with a threshold (significance, "is this a trend?") belongs in code. Let the model explain the result, not decide it.
2. Make "nothing happened" and "I can't tell" valid answers, and test them. If your tests only have cases with a cause, you'll never see the shrugger or the alarmist until a user does.
3. Use reasoning where the answer is a why. It was the biggest single factor in the results: 100% vs. 35% on the same model.
4. Check generated SQL against your real database dialect. Most failures here were PostgreSQL habits, not wrong logic, and a small rewrite or check catches them.
5. Don't parse the first thing a model says. Ask for a clean final answer, or read the last one, because models do correct themselves.
6. Route by task. Tool choice is cheap to get right, so a small model can handle it. Diagnosis isn't.

What I'd measure next

• Consistency: run each model three times and count how often the same case flips.
• The fixed jitter rule: rerun every model and see whether GPT-5.5 reaches 100%, and whether any other model's score changes.
• Real tool calls: multi-turn runs where the model actually calls InsightTrack's tools, instead of naming the one it would call.
• Messier evidence: seasonality, like a holiday dip that isn't search, alongside keywords that point in different directions.

Limits, honestly

• "Correct" means correct by InsightTrack's rules. Every rule and threshold is written into the prompt, so this tests careful application, not guessing a hidden convention.
• Synthetic data, one run per model, all through Kaggle's model proxy.
• SQL is graded strictly on the first query. That costs Haiku, as described above.
• One rule in the diagnosis prompt is ambiguous (the jitter rule vs. page_one_exit). It accounts for all four of GPT-5.5's misses. Fixed wording is planned for the next version.

My Benchmark

Kaggle benchmark: https://www.kaggle.com/benchmarks/nishikantaray/insighttrack-analyst-bench

Dataset (cases, sample tables, graders): https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/nishikantaray/insighttrack-analyst-bench

The product it's built from: https://github.com/NishikantaRay/InsightTrack

How you can use it

• Test another model: the four tasks are public on Kaggle, so anyone can run them against any model in Kaggle's catalogue and compare with the table above.
• Reuse the method for your own product: take a rule your code already enforces, turn it into generated test cases with the answer from your code, include cases where the right answer is "nothing", and label the kind of mistake as well as the score.

Built with Kaggle Benchmarks. The task pattern follows
its dataset_evaluation.py example. It covers ground near BFCL and τ-bench (tool calling),
InfiAgent-DABench and DSBench (data analysis), and Spider 2.0 and BIRD (text-to-SQL). It differs by
testing one real product's job end to end, and by scoring whether a model knows when nothing happened.