{ "evaluation_id": "EVAL-20260402-202340", "question_id": "ANALYSIS-021", "question_text": "You receive a job offer: $150K base, $50K RSUs/year, $20K signing bonus. The company's Glassdoor shows similar roles at $140K-$180K. You have a competing offer at $165K base, no RSUs. (1) Calculate total compensation for both over 4 years (assume 10% annual RSU appreciation). (2) What non-financial factors should affect the decision? (3) Write the counter-offer email that maximizes your outcome without risking the offer.", "category": "analysis", "timestamp": "2026-04-02T20:23:40.620Z", "display_date": "Apr 02, 2026", "winner": { "name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter", "score": 9.11 }, "avg_score": 8.083333, "matrix_size": 73, "models_used": [ { "id": "gpt_oss_120b", "name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI" }, { "id": "claude_opus_46", "name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gpt_5_4", "name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "deepseek_v4", "name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "claude_sonnet_46", "name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "grok_420", "name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gemini_3_flash", "name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "provider": "Google" }, { "id": "gemini_31_pro", "name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "mimo_v2_flash", "name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi" } ], "rankings": { "gpt_5_4": { "display_name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 9.11, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 8.8, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 1 }, "gpt_oss_120b": { "display_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI", "average_score": 8.78, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8.2, "max_score": 9.6, "rank": 2 }, "mimo_v2_flash": { "display_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi", "average_score": 8.47, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 7.75, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 3 }, "grok_420": { "display_name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.27, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 4 }, "gemini_3_flash": { "display_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "provider": "Google", "average_score": 8.21, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 7.3, "max_score": 9, "rank": 5 }, "claude_opus_46": { "display_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.11, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.85, "max_score": 9.55, "rank": 6 }, "deepseek_v4": { "display_name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.06, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 6.3, "max_score": 9.55, "rank": 7 }, "claude_sonnet_46": { "display_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.5, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 4.85, "max_score": 9.45, "rank": 8 }, "gemini_31_pro": { "display_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 6.24, "score_count": 5, "min_score": 0.5, "max_score": 9, "rank": 9 } }, "judgments": [ { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9.6, "brief_justification": "The response is excellent. The math for the 4-year TC is accurate and accounts for the 10% appreciation correctly. The non-financial factors are comprehensive, and the email template is professional and strategically sound." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.1, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 6.3, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.35, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 6, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.75, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 0.5, "brief_justification": "The response is completely empty - no content was provided to evaluate. The model failed to address any part of the multi-part question including the compensation calculation, non-financial factors discussion, or counter-offer email." }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.35, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally well-structured and thorough. The 4-year compensation calculation is correct with a reasonable interpretation of RSU appreciation (each annual grant appreciates from grant date to end of year 4). The conservative comparison without appreciation is a valuable addition. Non-financial factors are comprehensive and well-organized, covering career trajectory, manager quality, work-life balance, and risk factors. The counter-offer email is professionally crafted with the " }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 7.1, "brief_justification": "The RSU calculation has issues. Year 1 RSUs should also be at face value ($50K), which is correct, but the appreciation model is questionable - it's unclear whether the 10% appreciation should apply to Year 1 RSUs vesting in Year 1 or only to subsequent years' grants. More critically, the model doesn't account for cumulative vesting properly. Typically RSUs vest over 4 years, meaning Year 1 you might get 25% of a 4-year grant, not $50K/year as new grants. The problem says '$50K RSUs/year' which " }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 7.9, "brief_justification": "The financial calculations have a conceptual issue: the RSU appreciation model assumes each year's new RSU grant appreciates from that year forward, but the prompt says '$50K RSUs/year' with 10% annual appreciation. A more natural reading might be that the total RSU pool appreciates 10% per year (i.e., the $50K figure itself grows), which is what the response computed. However, there's ambiguity about whether previously vested RSUs continue appreciating in your portfolio. The response only count" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.95, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and shows impressive depth in sensitivity analysis, break-even analysis, and non-financial factors. However, there are significant correctness issues: the RSU appreciation model is questionable - the problem states '$50K RSUs/year' which most naturally means $50K granted each year, but the response treats each year's grant as if it was granted at the start and appreciates for increasing numbers of years (Year 2 grant appreciates for 2 years, Year 3 for 3 years), w" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 7.75, "brief_justification": "The RSU appreciation calculation is debatable - it assumes each year's new grant appreciates from its grant date rather than all RSUs appreciating from a single initial grant, which is one valid interpretation but not the only one. The Year 1 RSUs should also appreciate in subsequent years if we're tracking total portfolio value, but the approach taken (each annual vest appreciates 10% from the prior year's grant) is a reasonable simplification. The non-financial factors are comprehensive. The c" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "The RSU calculation methodology is reasonable and clearly explained, though the assumption that all grants are held until end of year 4 is just one interpretation (another valid interpretation would be simple annual vesting with no holding). The total comp math is correct given the stated assumptions. The non-financial factors table is comprehensive and well-organized. The counter-offer email is professional, strategically sound, and includes key negotiation tactics (enthusiasm, data-backed ask," }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.1, "brief_justification": "The RSU calculation assumes each year's grant appreciates from its grant date, which is one reasonable interpretation but not the only one (cumulative vesting of a single grant would differ). The 4-year total math is internally consistent with stated assumptions. The non-financial factors section is solid but could include more items (e.g., company stability/IPO risk, vesting schedule details, geographic considerations, management quality). The counter-offer email is excellent—well-structured, p" }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.85, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and covers many non-financial factors, but the compensation math relies on unclear/incorrect RSU assumptions and overstates conclusions. It also fails to provide the requested counter-offer email, which significantly reduces usefulness and completeness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 7.55, "brief_justification": "Clear and practical response with a strong email draft and good non-financial factors. Main weakness is the RSU math/assumption: it treats each annual grant as independently appreciated within the same year rather than modeling typical vesting and cumulative grant behavior, so the compensation calculation is somewhat simplistic and potentially misleading." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 7.75, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and practical, with a strong email draft and relevant non-financial factors. Main weakness is the RSU math/assumption: it treats each year's RSU grant as if only that year's grant appreciates once, rather than clearly defining grant timing/vesting, so the 4-year total may not match common RSU treatment. Still, the reasoning and negotiation advice are solid." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 4.85, "brief_justification": "The response is partially clear and offers some useful non-financial considerations, but the compensation math is materially flawed due to incorrect RSU vesting/appreciation assumptions, and the requested counter-offer email is incomplete and cut off." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 7.75, "brief_justification": "Clear and well-structured with practical advice and a strong email draft. Main issue is the RSU math/assumptions: it compounds each annual grant as if only the grant year matters, rather than clarifying vesting and appreciation timing, so the 4-year total may be overstated or at least under-specified. Non-financial factors and negotiation guidance are solid and useful." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.2, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and mostly accurate, with strong practical guidance and a solid negotiation email. Main issue: RSU treatment depends on vesting/grant assumptions, and the response is truncated at the end, slightly reducing completeness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 7.3, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and practical, especially the negotiation email and decision factors. However, the RSU calculation is likely incorrect because it treats each year's RSU grant as immediately appreciating and sums only one value per year, rather than modeling annual grants with vesting/value over a 4-year horizon. Non-financial factors are solid but not exhaustive." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial considerations, and a well-structured counter-offer email." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "Highly detailed and accurate analysis with comprehensive coverage of financial and non-financial factors, clear structure, and actionable insights." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial factors, and a well-structured counter-offer email." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough analysis, clear structure, insightful non-financial factors, and practical counter-offer strategy." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.4, "brief_justification": "Highly detailed and accurate calculations, thorough non-financial analysis, and strategic counter-offer framework." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough coverage, clear structure, insightful analysis, and highly actionable." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial factors, and a well-structured counter-offer email." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial analysis, and a strategic counter-offer email." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "Strong on calculations and actionable advice; email template is effective. Minor deduction for not specifying vesting schedule assumptions and for a slightly generic non-financial list." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Excellent analysis with accurate calculations, comprehensive non-financial factors, and strategic email template. Minor deduction for RSU calculation complexity but overall highly thorough and actionable." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial factors, clear structure, and actionable negotiation email with strategic options." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate math and strong strategic advice; email template is actionable and risk-aware." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.35, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with thorough sensitivity analysis, comprehensive non-financial factors, and a strategic email framework. Clear structure and high practical value." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, comprehensive non-financial factors, and a strategic, well-written counter-offer email." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial factors, clear structure, and actionable counter-offer email with strategic tactics." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial analysis, and a well-structured, actionable counter-offer email with clear strategy." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "The response provides thorough financial calculations with multiple interpretations of RSU vesting, clear comparison tables, and comprehensive non-financial factors. The RSU calculation methodology is well-explained though slightly inconsistent between approaches. The break-even analysis adds practical depth. Non-financial factors are exceptionally comprehensive and well-organized. The response appears to be cut off before the counter-offer email (Part 3), which is a significant omission that re" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 7.5, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and practical, but the RSU calculation methodology is flawed. The problem states $50K RSUs/year granted annually with 10% appreciation, but the calculation inconsistently applies appreciation - Year 1 RSUs should also appreciate over the vesting period, and the model doesn't account for cumulative grants appreciating over time. The Year 2 calculation ($50K × 1.10) seems to apply appreciation to only that year's grant, ignoring Year 1 RSUs still held. Despite this," }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and covers all three parts thoroughly. The RSU appreciation calculation is reasonable (treating each year's grant as appreciating from the prior year's value), though one could argue about whether the initial $50K grant appreciates or new grants are issued at appreciated prices - the model chose a defensible interpretation. Non-financial factors are relevant and practical. The counter-offer email is professional, strategic, and actionable with clear reasoning. Min" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.1, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and covers all three parts effectively. The RSU calculation has a subtle issue: it applies 10% appreciation to each year's grant cumulatively (Year 2 RSUs = $55K implies the Year 1 grant appreciated, but the framing is ambiguous—it could mean each annual grant is worth 10% more than the prior year's grant, which is a reasonable interpretation). The non-financial factors section is thorough and practical. The counter-offer email is professional, specific, and well-" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and covers all three parts effectively. The RSU calculation is reasonable under the stated assumption (grants vest and are held to year 4), though it doesn't address the more common scenario of immediate vesting and sale, or tax implications. The non-financial factors table is comprehensive and practical. The counter-offer email is professional, tactful, and includes good negotiation tactics. Minor deduction for the truncated ending ('Ask for a *specific') and not" }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 4.5, "brief_justification": "The response is missing entirely. No calculations, factors, or email provided, making it impossible to evaluate content quality." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.15, "brief_justification": "Calculations contain multiple inconsistent RSU appreciation methods and flawed assumptions (e.g. compounding on grants that vest immediately), leading to overstated $232k equity value. Non-financial factors and email are thorough and well-structured but the core math errors reduce factual accuracy." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Calculations are accurate with clear assumptions and caveats; non-financial factors are comprehensive; email is professional and strategically sound for negotiation." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 7.75, "brief_justification": "Calculations are mostly accurate but RSU appreciation is applied incorrectly (should compound on prior vested value, not reset yearly). Non-financial factors are comprehensive and well-structured. Counter-offer email is professional, strategic, and effective. Overall response is clear, useful, and covers all parts thoroughly with good practical advice." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.55, "brief_justification": "Calculations contain flawed RSU appreciation modeling (incorrectly compounds prior grants instead of separate annual grants), but overall analysis is thorough, well-structured with useful tables and insights. Non-financial factors and email strategy are insightful though email is incomplete." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "The response accurately calculates total compensation (with correct geometric appreciation math), provides a comprehensive structured overview of non-financial factors, and delivers a professional, effective counter-offer email that balances assertiveness with flexibility. Minor nit: the email cuts off mid-sentence in the key tactics list, but overall highly complete, clear and actionable." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.2, "brief_justification": "Calculations are mostly accurate but slightly overestimate RSU value by treating yearly grants as compounding on prior value rather than independent annual grants; non-financial factors and email are thorough, well-structured, and practically useful with good strategic insight." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate compensation calculations and thorough non-financial analysis, well-structured presentation, but omitted the required counter-offer email, reducing completeness and overall usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with clear assumptions, covers all requested parts, well-structured and detailed, offers practical negotiation guidance and a ready-to-use email." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations and covers all three parts with clear structure; offers practical non-financial considerations and a solid email template, though deeper analysis of equity risk and negotiation tactics could improve depth." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations and clear structure; covers required parts with useful non-financial considerations and a practical email, though could include more nuanced factors and deeper financial analysis." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 5.55, "brief_justification": "Calculations contain errors and the counter‑offer email is incomplete, lowering correctness and completeness, but the answer is well‑structured and offers deep analysis, giving good clarity and depth; usefulness is moderate due to flaws." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "Accurate compensation math, covers all required parts, clear layout, offers solid but not exhaustive analysis, and provides a practical counter‑offer email." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 7.3, "brief_justification": "Calculations are based on a simplified RSU model that may not match the intended interpretation, but the answer covers all three parts with clear structure and useful actionable content, though deeper analysis of equity risk and other non-financial factors could improve depth." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "The model correctly calculated the 4-year TC including the 10% appreciation, provided insightful non-financial factors, and wrote a professional, low-risk counter-offer email." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "The response is excellent, providing a detailed financial breakdown with clear assumptions and a comprehensive list of non-financial factors. It correctly identifies that Offer A is significantly better. However, it failed to provide the requested counter-offer email (Part 3), which was a specific requirement of the prompt." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally thorough. The math for the RSU appreciation is logically sound (applying compounding growth to each annual grant), the non-financial factors are comprehensive, and the email template is professional and strategically sound." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "The calculations are accurate based on the provided assumptions, the non-financial factors are comprehensive, and the email is professional and strategically sound. The response directly addresses all parts of the prompt with high-quality advice." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally accurate and thorough. The financial calculations correctly account for the 10% annual appreciation of RSUs, the non-financial factors are insightful, and the counter-offer email is professionally structured to minimize risk while maximizing leverage." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "The mathematical modeling of RSU appreciation is excellent and logically sound. The non-financial analysis is deep and practical. The response was cut off at the very end of the email section, but the provided content is high quality." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "The calculations are mathematically sound and follow the 10% appreciation prompt correctly. The non-financial factors are comprehensive. The email is professional, though asking for an increase in all three categories (base, equity, and bonus) simultaneously can be aggressive, but it is well-structured." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.1, "brief_justification": "Accurate financial calculations with clear breakdown and risk analysis. Excellent coverage of non-financial factors with 13 categories. Well-structured and easy to follow. However, Part 3 explicitly requested a counter-offer email but only negotiation strategy was provided - the actual email was not written, reducing completeness and practical usefulness for this specific request." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.35, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with both aggressive and conservative scenarios. Comprehensive non-financial factors list. Clear, well-formatted structure. Practical, actionable email template with multiple negotiation targets and fallbacks. Minor deduction for not addressing tax implications or detailed vesting schedules." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9.25, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with correct math, comprehensive coverage of all three parts, well-structured and clear presentation, good depth on non-financial factors and email strategy though could explore RSU vesting risk more, highly actionable with practical email template." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate financial calculations with clear year-by-year breakdown. Comprehensive non-financial factors covering liquidity, career growth, culture, benefits, and job security. Well-structured counter-offer email with multiple solutions and strategic framing. Slight room for depth in tax implications and vesting specifics, but overall thorough and actionable." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.05, "brief_justification": "Strong financial analysis with detailed calculations and sensitivity analysis. Excellent non-financial factors coverage. However, the counter-offer email section is incomplete/cut off, leaving the user without the requested deliverable. The RSU appreciation model is one valid interpretation but not universally standard." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with RSU appreciation, comprehensive non-financial factors, and professional counter-offer email. Slight deduction for depth as it could explore negotiation tactics more, but highly actionable overall." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurate 4-year compensation calculation with clear methodology, comprehensive non-financial factors table with actionable questions, and professional counter-offer email with strategic elements. Well-organized with tables and clear formatting throughout." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.2, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with clear breakdown. Well-structured response covering all three parts. Good non-financial factors discussed. The counter-offer email is professional and strategically sound (asking for $170K to leave room for negotiation, offering immediate signature). Minor gaps: could explore tax implications of RSUs, vesting details, and more non-financial factors like remote work policies." } ], "meta": { "source": "The Multivac (app.themultivac.com)", "methodology": "10x10 blind peer matrix evaluation", "criteria": "correctness, completeness, clarity, depth, usefulness", "self_judgments": "excluded from rankings", "license": "Open data — cite as: The Multivac (2026)" } }