Confirm Action

Are you sure you want to proceed?

682 AI-generated landing pages, judged

Same brief, different model, real output. Each page was generated as HTML, rendered on desktop and mobile, and graded by a vision judge. Nothing is mocked up — click any card to see the render and what the judge said.

See the full ranking on the Frontend & Landing Pages leaderboard.

Minimax m2.7 vs Glm 5 (6 shared briefs, biggest score gap first)

All models Claude Fable 5 Claude Haiku 4.5 Claude Opus 4.5 Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude Sonnet 5 Deepseek v3.1 Terminus Deepseek v3.2 Deepseek v4 Pro Gemini 3 Flash Preview Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Gemini 3.5 Flash Glm 5 Glm 5.2 GPT-5 Mini GPT-5.4 GPT-5.4 Mini GPT-5.5 Grok 4.20 Grok 4.20 Beta Kimi k2.5 Kimi k2.6 Kimi k2.7 Code Minimax m2.7 Minimax m3 Mistral Medium 3.1 qwen3.5 Plus 02 15 qwen3.7 Max

Comparing best render per brief. Remove a model (×) to go back to the grid.

Tradewinds — marketplace pricing

score gap 45
Minimax m2.7 · medium reasoning 33
Failed
Glm 5 · max reasoning 78
Usable · winner

Northwind — B2B SaaS landing page

score gap 37
Minimax m2.7 · max reasoning 35
Failed
Glm 5 72
Usable · winner

Glow & Grain — local bakery site (non-tech)

score gap 20
Minimax m2.7 · max reasoning 55
Weak · winner
Glm 5 · max reasoning 35
Failed

Ferrovia — enterprise pricing tiers

score gap 16
Minimax m2.7 · medium reasoning 64
Needs editing
Glm 5 · max reasoning 80
Strong · winner

Lumen Health — compliance-careful healthtech

score gap 3
Minimax m2.7 · max reasoning 70
Usable
Glm 5 · medium reasoning 73
Usable · winner

Cedar & Sage — DTC product page

score gap 0
Minimax m2.7 · max reasoning 72
Usable
Glm 5 72
Usable

How these were made and judged

Each model received the same landing-page brief (a fictional company from our shared benchmark universe) and produced a single self-contained HTML page. We rendered every page at desktop and mobile sizes and had a vision judge grade the screenshots against the brief — hierarchy, copy, credibility, and conversion basics. Scores and judge quotes are unedited. Full methodology on the collection page.

This page is Spring Prompt, running

We just did this for every model. Do it for your prompt.

The rankings above come from running real tasks through real models and scoring every output. Spring Prompt is that same engine — pointed at your prompt, your test cases, and your definition of good.

  • Generate test cases from your prompt — no eval set required to start.
  • Compare models side by side with quality, cost and latency in one matrix.
  • Optimise the winner until the scores say it's ready to ship.
Join the waitlist Browse all benchmarks
Experiment · Cold outreach email

Prompt × model results

12 test cases · 3 evals
Claude Opus
GPT-5
Gemini
v1
7.1
6.8
7.4
v2
8.3
7.9
8.0
v3
9.2 ★
8.6
8.4
Best combo: v3 × Claude Opus
9.2 quality · $0.004/run · 1.8s