GPT-5.4 Mini
Editor's pick: Reliable for JSON-labeled tasks at scale
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is the best LLM for classification / labeling in April 2026, followed by GPT-5.4 Mini and Claude Haiku 4.5. Rankings reflect real benchmarks, pricing, and compliance for a typical classification / labeling workload; see the breakdown below or take the quiz for a pick tailored to your volume and constraints. Last verified 2026-04-19.
Editor's pick: Reliable for JSON-labeled tasks at scale
Editor's pick: Best instruction following in the cheap tier
Top-tier benchmarks for this use case (93/100)
Strong quality profile (86/100)
Expand any question for the full answer. Last reviewed 2026-04-19.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is the best LLM for classification / labeling in April 2026, followed by GPT-5.4 Mini and Claude Haiku 4.5. The ranking is based on benchmarks relevant to classification / labeling — instruction following, reasoning, tool use where applicable — combined with cost at a typical production volume and caching behavior. All picks are verified against arena.ai/leaderboard and the provider's published pricing as of 2026-04-19.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is the cheapest credible option for classification / labeling at $0.25 / $1.5 per 1M, coming in at roughly $1.8k/month at typical volume. This model does not support prompt caching, so list price is the full cost.
Yes — Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, Gemini 3 Flash all offer a free tier usable for prototyping classification / labeling workloads. Free tiers have rate limits and daily quotas, so they're fine for validation but not production. See the model pages for exact quotas.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is the top Anthropic pick, GPT-5.4 Mini is the top OpenAI pick, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is the top Google pick. For classification / labeling workloads in April 2026, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite ranks first overall in our picker. The gap between top picks is small — you should pick primarily on API ergonomics, deployment region, and caching behavior rather than raw benchmark score.
Rankings combine (1) benchmark scores weighted by what matters for classification / labeling — for example coding benchmarks dominate for coding, long-context retrieval dominates for RAG and long documents, (2) cost at a typical production volume, (3) speed and latency tier, (4) ergonomics like prompt caching and structured output, (5) recency of release, and (6) a curated editorial boost for provider-specific strengths that generic benchmarks miss (e.g. Gemini's advantage on maps and geospatial tasks). Every rank shows its exact score breakdown on the quiz result page.