Rankings
Usage analytics and performance benchmarks across orchestration models, rendering engines, and video orchestration providers.
Leaderboard
Engine and model combinations ranked by request volume with performance metrics
| # | Engine + Model | Requests | Success rate | Avg latency | P95 latency | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HyperFrames + Xiaomi MiMo V2.5 Pro xiaomi/mimo-v2.5-pro | 6 | 16.7% | 383.4s | 383.4s | $0.25 |
| 2 | HyperFrames + MiniMax M3 minimax/minimax-m3 | 5 | 20% | 1064.1s | 1064.1s | $0.87 |
| 3 | HyperFrames + xAI Grok 4.3 x-ai/grok-4.3 | 3 | 100% | 174.6s | 216.2s | $0.23 |
| 4 | HyperFrames + Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 anthropic/claude-opus-4.8 | 3 | 0% | 0s | 0s | — |
| 5 | HyperFrames + Moonshot AI Kimi K2.7 Code moonshotai/kimi-k2.7-code | 3 | 66.7% | 796.8s | 953.5s | $1.49 |
| 6 | I HyperFrames + inclusionAI Ring 2.6-1T inclusionai/ring-2.6-1t | 1 | 100% | 450.8s | 450.8s | $0.29 |
| 7 | P HyperFrames + Poolside Laguna M.1 Free poolside/laguna-m.1:free | 1 | 100% | 771.1s | 771.1s | $0.38 |
| 8 | HyperFrames + Z.ai GLM 5.1 z-ai/glm-5.1 | 1 | 0% | 0s | 0s | — |
Usage over time
Daily request volume by model over the last 30 days
Latency vs cost
Comparing average latency against cost per generation
Requests by engine
Total request volume broken down by rendering engine
Engine success rates
Percentage of successful completions by rendering engine
Engine summary
Key metrics for each rendering engine
HyperFrames
23 requests
Requests by provider
Total request volume broken down by video orchestration provider
Provider success rates
Percentage of successful completions by video orchestration provider