Business · 10 tasks · 44 models
Cheapest AI models for Product & Project Management
Which models write PM artifacts that start from the problem, are testable, and stay honest about assumptions?
The cheapest capable model for Product & Project Management is gemini-3.1-flash-lite, at $0.018 per run — and it still clears our quality bar.
Top score — excellent
Clears the quality bar at $0.018/run
Quality vs. cost
Every model placed by what it delivers and what it costs. The best value sits high and to the left.
Full ranking
| # | Model | Score | Cost/run | Speed | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | gemini-3.1-flash-lite | 88.4 Strong | $0.0178 | 13.3s | Best overall |
| 2 | gpt-5-mini | 86.6 Strong | $0.0188 | 26.4s | Best overall |
| 3 | claude-haiku-4.5 | 88.7 Strong | $0.0211 | 20.0s | Best overall |
| 4 | deepseek-v3.2-low | 92.3 Excellent | $0.0217 | 36.1s | Best overall |
| 5 | qwen3.5-plus-02-15 | 87.7 Strong | $0.0222 | 63.5s | Best overall |
| 6 | deepseek-v3.2 | 85.9 Strong | $0.0230 | 60.4s | Best overall |
| 7 | deepseek-v3.1-terminus | 83.8 Strong | $0.0238 | 45.1s | Strong drafts |
| 8 | gpt-5.4-mini | 92.6 Excellent | $0.0239 | 22.1s | Best overall |
| 9 | kimi-k2.7-code | 90.1 Excellent | $0.0244 | 53.7s | Best overall |
| 10 | minimax-m2.7 | 85.5 Strong | $0.0247 | 49.5s | Best overall |
| 11 | mistral-medium-3.1 | 87.0 Strong | $0.0248 | 28.2s | Best overall |
| 12 | deepseek-v3.2-high | 80.2 Strong | $0.0250 | 76.8s | Strong drafts |
| 13 | qwen3.7-max-high | 92.3 Excellent | $0.0253 | 58.2s | Best overall |
| 14 | gemini-3-flash-preview | 83.0 Strong | $0.0254 | 25.7s | Strong drafts |
| 15 | kimi-k2.5 | 85.4 Strong | $0.0257 | 68.6s | Best overall |
| 16 | glm-5 | 84.5 Strong | $0.0267 | 90.3s | Strong drafts |
| 17 | grok-4.20-beta | 87.3 Strong | $0.0267 | 21.6s | Best overall |
| 18 | grok-4.20 | 81.9 Strong | $0.0268 | 22.5s | Strong drafts |
| 19 | qwen3.7-max-low | 94.4 Excellent | $0.0295 | 59.9s | Best overall |
| 20 | qwen3.7-max | 85.1 Strong | $0.0304 | 69.3s | Best overall |
| 21 | gemini-3.5-flash-low | 88.0 Strong | $0.0310 | 21.4s | Best overall |
| 22 | claude-sonnet-4.5-low | 80.6 Strong | $0.0319 | 31.7s | Strong drafts |
| 23 | gpt-5.4 | 92.4 Excellent | $0.0326 | 25.1s | Best overall |
| 24 | gpt-5.4-low | 83.9 Strong | $0.0328 | 21.0s | Strong drafts |
| 25 | claude-sonnet-4.5 | 84.9 Strong | $0.0336 | 35.3s | Strong drafts |
| 26 | claude-sonnet-4.5-high | 82.2 Strong | $0.0353 | 35.1s | Strong drafts |
| 27 | claude-sonnet-4.6-high | 87.1 Strong | $0.0372 | 41.8s | Best overall |
| 28 | claude-sonnet-4.6-low | 77.7 Usable | $0.0386 | 41.6s | Strong drafts |
| 29 | gemini-3.5-flash-high | 75.9 Usable | $0.0389 | 26.8s | Strong drafts |
| 30 | gemini-3.1-pro-preview-high | 89.4 Strong | $0.0406 | 37.5s | Best overall |
| 31 | gemini-3.1-pro-preview-low | 74.2 Usable | $0.0414 | 28.5s | Needs review |
| 32 | claude-opus-4.5 | 76.4 Usable | $0.0421 | 35.0s | Strong drafts |
| 33 | gpt-5.5-low | 93.1 Excellent | $0.0444 | 27.2s | Best overall |
| 34 | claude-opus-4.8-low | 85.6 Strong | $0.0444 | 26.2s | Best overall |
| 35 | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 89.4 Strong | $0.0479 | 40.6s | Best overall |
| 36 | claude-opus-4.8-high | 94.8 Excellent | $0.0479 | 28.3s | Best overall |
| 37 | claude-opus-4.6 | 82.0 Strong | $0.0500 | 48.7s | Strong drafts |
| 38 | gpt-5.5 | 93.0 Excellent | $0.0525 | 34.9s | Best overall |
| 39 | claude-opus-4.5-low | 85.4 Strong | $0.0541 | 40.2s | Best overall |
| 40 | gpt-5.4-high | 91.1 Excellent | $0.0545 | 38.9s | Best overall |
| 41 | claude-opus-4.5-high | 85.9 Strong | $0.0569 | 46.3s | Best overall |
| 42 | claude-opus-4.6-high | 77.1 Usable | $0.0575 | 56.2s | Strong drafts |
| 43 | claude-opus-4.6-low | 86.5 Strong | $0.0580 | 52.0s | Best overall |
| 44 | gpt-5.5-high | 94.2 Excellent | $0.0670 | 43.9s | Best overall |
What separates the top models
PRD / Spec
hardTests a PRD that leads with the problem and target user, defines a success metric, and states non-goals and edge cases.
Leader: gpt-5-mini
User Stories & Acceptance Criteria
mediumTests INVEST user stories and testable Given-When-Then acceptance criteria covering happy path plus edge cases.
Leader: claude-opus-4.8-high
Prioritization Rationale
hardTests applying a prioritization framework (e.g. RICE) honestly — with stated assumptions, confidence, and no fake precision.
Leader: claude-opus-4.5-low
Roadmap
mediumTests an outcome-oriented Now/Next/Later roadmap that ties work to goals and is honest about uncertainty.
Leader: claude-sonnet-4.6-low
See the difference
Real model outputs and how our judge scored them.
Top score
gemini-3.1-pro-preview-low
Now/Next/Later roadmap (Cedar & Sage)
100/100
“The artifact perfectly executes an outcome-oriented Now/Next/Later roadmap. It leads with clear customer problems and measurable success metrics for each horizon. It explicitly acknowledges the uncertainty of the 'Later' horizon and avoids being a dated feature factory. While the rubric mentions acceptance criteria, this is a roadmap artifact where such granular details are not applicable; however, its strategic metrics and problem statements are highly specific and testable.”
Here is an outcome-oriented Now/Next/Later roadmap for Cedar & Sage. Rather than a rigid timeline of features, this roadmap focuses on the customer problems we are solving to drive our primary business goal: **improving customer retention and lifetime value (LTV).**
***
### **NOW**
*We are actively working on these initiatives. We have high confidence in the problems we are solving and the resources allocated to them.*
**Primary Outcome:** Reduce Day-30 subscription churn by 15% and increase the second-order rate.
**Strategic Focus:** Removing immediate post-purchase friction and ensuring customers get immediate value from their first Cedar & Sage experience.
**Problems we are solving:**
* **"I don't know how to properly use what I bought."**
* *Focus:* Revamping our post-purchase education. We are exploring automated, personalized email/SMS guides tailored to the specific wellness products a customer just received, rather than generic brand emails.
* **"Managing my subscription is too difficult."**
* *Focus:* Overhauling the self-serve customer portal. Customers should be able to easily pause, skip, or swap products without needing to contact support.
* **"My first order took too long to arrive."**
* *Focus:* Improving fulfillment transparency. We are implementing proactive shipping delays notifications and better order-tracking visibility so customers aren't left in the dark.
---
### **NEXT**
*These are the priorities we will tackle once our 'Now' outcomes are achieved. We know these are the right problems to solve, but the exact solutions are still being researched and prototyped.*
**Primary Outcome:** Increase 90-day repeat purchase rate by 20% and improve average orders per active customer.
**Strategic Focus:** Habit formation, per
Mid-pack
gpt-5.4-high
Churn-risk surfacing (Northwind)
94/100
“The artifact is an excellent, outcome-driven PRD that perfectly leads with the problem, defines measurable success metrics, and comprehensively covers scope and edge cases without fabricating data, with only a minor deduction for lacking explicit Given-When-Then acceptance criteria.”
# PRD: At-Risk Brokerage Account Detection for Customer Success ## Summary Build a v1 account-risk capability that identifies managed brokerage accounts likely to churn or materially contract in the next 90 days, explains the top risk drivers, and gives Customer Success a reliable way to prioritize intervention before renewal is lost. ## Problem Statement **Who hurts:** - **Customer Success Managers (CSMs)** manage too many brokerage accounts to inspect each one manually. Today they rely on spreadsheets, gut feel, and late signals from renewals or escalations. - **Revenue / CS leadership** lacks an early, consistent view of preventable churn risk across the book of business. - **Brokerage customers** with adoption, support, or operational issues often do not get proactive help until dissatisfaction is already severe. **Why now:** - Retention is increasingly valuable as new-logo growth becomes more expensive and brokerage budgets tighten. - Northwind’s brokerage customer base is large enough that reactive account management no longer scales. - Northwind already has useful signals across product usage, support, CRM, and billing, but they are fragmented and not turned into an actionable account-level risk view. ## Goal / Success Metric **Primary success metric:** Within 2 quarters of launch, **70% of managed brokerage accounts that churn or contract >20% ARR are flagged “High Risk” at least 45 days before the event**. Optional guardrail for operations: keep the high-risk queue small enough to act on (e.g., no more than ~20–25% of managed accounts flagged at one time). ## Scope ### In Scope for v1 1. **Account-level risk scoring for managed brokerage accounts** - Predict risk of non-renewal or material contraction in the next 90 days. - Start with ac
Lowest score
gpt-5.4-low
RICE across three bets (Northwind)
0/100
“The model returned an empty response.”
Where models still fail
The most common problems we flagged across all models.
Frequently asked
What is the best AI model for product & project management?
In our benchmarks, claude-opus-4.8-high ranks first for product & project management, scoring excellent, across 10 test cases.
What is the cheapest good model for product & project management?
gemini-3.1-flash-lite is the best value: it clears our quality bar for product & project management at $0.018 per run.
Which model is fastest for product & project management?
gemini-3.1-flash-lite is the fastest model that still performs well for product & project management.
How we test
Each model output is scored by a strict JSON LLM judge, supported by deterministic heuristics, then normalized to a 0-100 score.
Judge: gemini-3.1-pro-preview · 440 model runs across 4 benchmarks · last tested 2026-06-29
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.
Prompt × model results
12 test cases · 3 evals