cd /news/large-language-models/which-llm-should-i-actually-code-wit… · home topics large-language-models article
[ARTICLE · art-55927] src=dev.to ↗ pub= topic=large-language-models verified=true sentiment=· neutral

Which LLM should I actually code with? I built a small benchmark to find out

A developer built a small benchmark to compare LLMs for coding tasks across Python, C#, and Bash. All three models achieved 100% pass@3 on problems they were allowed to answer, but one model was content-filtered on four problems, reducing its effective coverage. The developer concluded that accuracy is no longer a differentiator, so the choice should be based on speed and cost per language.

read2 min views1 publishedJul 12, 2026

I kept going back and forth on which model to reach for in my actual day job. Every "which LLM is best at code" thread turns into vibes and screenshots, and none of it answered the question I had, which is which one to open when I have real work in the languages I use. So I stopped guessing and built a small benchmark to settle it for myself.

It is deliberately small. 14 problems across Python, C#, and Bash, three models, three attempts each at temperature 0.7 with a 10 second timeout. Every attempt runs in a sandboxed Docker container and gets scored on pass@k, cost, and latency. It is not an authoritative ranking and I am not pretending it splits hairs. It is enough to show the shape.

Accuracy is not the differentiator anymore. All three models solved every problem they were allowed to answer, 100% pass@3. If I only looked at pass rates I would have learned nothing, because they all pass.

The catch hides in "allowed to answer." One model got content filtered out of four problems, so its perfect score covers 10 of the 14, not the whole set. A perfect score on the problems you answered and a perfect score on the whole bench are not the same result, which is why the leaderboard sorts on coverage first.

If they all pass, the decision comes down to what you pay and how long you wait. That is where the spread lives. So the honest summary is boring in the best way. Pick on speed and price, because accuracy already agrees.

One result is not like the others. One model was quick and cheap on Python and C#, a second or two per problem, then fell off a cliff on Bash at 90 to 168 seconds per problem. Four slow Bash problems dragged its average latency up to something that makes it look slow overall when it is really fine everywhere except Bash. If your day is mostly shell, that matters a lot. If it is Python, you would never notice.

That is why a single "which model is fastest" number is a lie. Fastest at what, in which language, is the only version of the question worth asking.

For my work it came down to speed and cost per language. The benchmark did the one job I wanted. It turned a running argument in my head into a few numbers I can re-run whenever the models change.

── more in #large-language-models 4 stories · sorted by recency
sponsored brought to you by zahid.host 4,200+ EU-deployed projects
reading about agents? ship yours in a single git push.

Run your AI side-project on zahid.host

EU-based hosting, git-push deploys, automatic HTTPS, no cold starts. Free tier with a custom domain — perfect for shipping the agent you just read about.

$git push zahid main
Live at https://your-agent.zahid.host
Get free account → Pricing
from €0/mo · no card required
LIVE [news/which-llm-should-i-a…] indexed:0 read:2min 2026-07-12 ·