Skip to main content
CARLA HQ
AUTOGLUON FEV-BENCH100 Benchmark Tasks41 Evaluated MethodsProbabilistic SQL & MASE

Time Series Forecasting Model Leaderboard & Matrix

Empirical evaluation directly from the AutoGluon fev benchmark suite evaluating Mistral's Timestral, Google TimesFM, AWS Chronos, and Prior Labs TabPFN-TS against deep learning, gradient-boosted trees, and statistical baselines across 100 evaluation tasks.

#1 Global Ranked Model?Timestral-209M from Mistral AI achieves the highest aggregate win rate (87.7%) across all 100 tasks in fev-bench.
Timestral-209M87.7% Win Rate • 50.4% Skill Score
In-Browser Carla Engine?Carla Engine executes Timestral-123M 100% locally in-browser via WebGPU tensor kernels with zero server uploads.
Timestral-123M86.9% Win Rate • 0.32s Latency
Evaluated Suite?41 models spanning open-weight foundation models, closed APIs, deep neural architectures, and statistical baselines.
41 MethodsMistral AI, Google, AWS, Prior Labs
Primary Evaluation Metric?Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL) penalizes both point prediction errors and quantile miscalibration across 9 probabilistic levels (p10 to p90).
SQL & MASEProbabilistic calibration
GLOBAL TIME SERIES LEADERBOARD (FEV-BENCH)

Foundation Models vs Traditional ML & Baselines (41 Methods)

Empirical evaluation across 100 diverse tasks. Filter by paradigm or search by model name to inspect win rates, skill scores relative to Seasonal Naive, and median execution latencies.

RankMethod / ModelFamilyOrganization
SQL Win Rate?Average win rate (%) against all competing models across the 100 benchmark tasks under Scaled Quantile Loss.
SQL Skill?Normalized skill score relative to Seasonal Naive baseline (0% = baseline, higher is better).
MASE Win Rate?Average win rate (%) under Mean Absolute Scaled Error.
Latency?Median end-to-end execution time per 100 time series in seconds.
In-BrowserLink
#1
Timestral-209M
Foundation ModelMistral AI87.7%+50.4%86.0%0.51sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#2
Timestral-123M (Carla Engine)CARLA ENGINE
Foundation ModelMistral AI86.8%+50.2%85.0%0.32s100% WebGPURepo ↗
#3
TimeRSI
Closed-Source APIGaTech & SamayLabs84.8%+51.2%83.8%2512sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#4
t0-gamma
Foundation ModelThe Forecasting Company84.4%+49.4%81.8%4.38sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#5
Timestral-28M
Foundation ModelMistral AI79.2%+48.4%77.0%0.11sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#6
timesfm-3
Foundation ModelGoogle78.5%+49.0%77.0%3.41sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#7
ChakraTS
BaselineCommunity78.2%+48.1%79.5%14.22sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#8
Lingjiang2.0
BaselineCommunity73.9%+47.0%71.3%8.89sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#9
Chronos-2
Foundation ModelAWS70.4%+47.3%68.4%0.84sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#10
timeh2o-v1-tiny
Foundation ModelH2O.ai69.9%+45.5%67.0%0.19sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#11
Timestral-5M
Foundation ModelMistral AI69.0%+46.2%67.7%40msServer / CloudRepo ↗
#12
Toto-2.0-2.5B
BaselineCommunity67.5%+44.4%65.7%5.58sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#13
t0-beta
Foundation ModelThe Forecasting Company67.4%+46.6%64.5%2.29sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#14
Toto-2.0-1B
BaselineCommunity66.4%+44.4%65.5%2.48sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#15
TiRex-2
Foundation ModelNX-AI65.8%+45.5%63.4%0.27sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#16
Toto-2.0-313m
BaselineCommunity65.1%+44.2%63.5%1.06sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#17
TiRex
Foundation ModelNX-AI58.0%+42.6%54.1%0.24sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#18
Toto-2.0-22m
BaselineCommunity57.6%+42.9%56.0%0.25sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#19
TimesFM-2.5
BaselineCommunity54.6%+42.2%53.5%1.87sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#20
TabPFN-TS-3
Foundation ModelPrior Labs52.4%+43.1%51.3%235sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#21
TS-ICL
Foundation ModelEDF-Lab51.2%+43.1%49.8%2.49sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#22
FlowState
Foundation ModelIBM49.3%+39.9%49.9%2.29sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#23
citras-fm
Foundation ModelHitachi48.8%+41.2%46.9%0.60sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#24
Toto-1.0
BaselineCommunity47.5%+40.8%45.9%22.35sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#25
TabPFN-TS
Foundation ModelPrior Labs47.3%+41.5%45.4%109sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#26
Toto-2.0-4m
BaselineCommunity46.2%+40.7%43.6%0.20sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#27
Moirai-2.0
BaselineCommunity41.9%+39.3%40.5%0.35sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#28
Chronos-Bolt
Foundation ModelAWS41.4%+38.9%39.3%0.26sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#29
TFT
Deep Learning—31.7%+32.2%29.2%829sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#30
Stat. Ensemble
BaselineCommunity27.5%+20.7%30.6%147sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#31
Sundial-Base
Foundation ModelTsinghua University27.4%+33.4%33.6%8.01sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#32
PatchTST
Deep Learning—26.8%+30.1%25.1%664sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#33
DeepAR
Deep Learning—26.1%+29.1%23.6%1113sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#34
AutoARIMA
Statistical Baseline—23.3%+21.3%21.5%20.14sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#35
AutoETS
Statistical Baseline—20.3%-26.8%22.5%3.48sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#36
CatBoost
Tree Ensemble—19.1%+23.0%35.1%29.48sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#37
LightGBM
Tree Ensemble—17.8%+21.0%33.1%3.03sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#38
AutoTheta
Statistical Baseline—15.6%+5.5%19.8%3.28sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#39
Seasonal Naive
BaselineCommunity10.3%0.0%11.8%0.48sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#40
Naive
Statistical Baseline—6.7%-45.4%10.9%0.47sServer / CloudRepo ↗
#41
Drift
Statistical Baseline—6.1%-45.8%10.0%0.45sServer / CloudRepo ↗
PAIRWISE HEAD-TO-HEAD MATCHUP MATRIX

Direct Head-to-Head Record Across 100 Tasks

Direct pairwise dataset win-loss tallies across the 8 leading foundation models and baselines. Click any cell to inspect the full 100-task comparison.

KEY MATCHUP DEEP DIVES

Select a Pairwise Benchmark

Direct head-to-head empirical breakdowns highlighting predictive win rates, structural model advantages, and latency differences. Click to explore the complete task breakdown.

Head-to-Head Matchupfev-bench

Timestral-123M vs Google TimesFM-3

Mistral AI vs Google • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)

72Timestral-123M (Carla Engine) Wins
vs
28TimesFM-3 Wins

Timestral-123M achieves a 72% head-to-head win rate across 100 fev tasks while running 10x faster (0.32s vs 3.41s median latency).

Head-to-Head Matchupfev-bench

Timestral-123M vs AWS Chronos-2

Mistral AI vs AWS • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)

80Timestral-123M (Carla Engine) Wins
vs
20Chronos-2 Wins

Continuous causal attention in Timestral outperforms discrete T5 tokenization on 80 of 100 benchmark tasks with full multivariate support.

Head-to-Head Matchupfev-bench

Timestral-123M vs Prior Labs TabPFN-TS-3

Mistral AI vs Prior Labs • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)

86Timestral-123M (Carla Engine) Wins
vs
14TabPFN-TS-3 Wins

Timestral dominates Prior Labs' TabPFN-TS-3 with an 86-14 record and over 700x faster execution time (0.32s vs 234.6s median latency).

Head-to-Head Matchupfev-bench

Timestral-123M vs The Forecasting Co. t0-gamma

Mistral AI vs The Forecasting Company • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)

55Timestral-123M (Carla Engine) Wins
vs
45t0-gamma Wins

Competitive matchup against closed-weights t0-gamma, with Timestral executing 13x faster with full client-side WebGPU browser execution.

Head-to-Head Matchupfev-bench

Timestral-123M vs LightGBM Lag Baseline

Mistral AI vs AutoGluon Baseline • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)

99Timestral-123M (Carla Engine) Wins
vs
1LightGBM Wins

Zero-shot foundation model outperforms manually lag-engineered gradient boosted trees on 99 out of 100 tasks with zero hyperparameter search.

Head-to-Head Matchupfev-bench

Timestral-209M vs Google TimesFM-3

Mistral AI vs Google • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)

75Timestral-209M Wins
vs
25TimesFM-3 Wins

Rank #1 globally in fev-bench: Timestral-209M achieves an 87.7% aggregate win rate and 75-25 head-to-head record against Google's flagship model.

MODEL ARCHITECTURES & PARADIGMS

How Do Modern Time Series Foundation Models Work?

Understanding the differences between continuous causal transformers, patch tokenization, quantized language tokens, and prior-data fitted networks.

Decoder-Only Causal Transformer

Mistral AI — Timestral Suite

Timestral-209M / 123M / 28M / 5M
TokenizationContinuous Patch Projection + RoPE
Context WindowUp to 32,768 steps (streaming attention)
In-Browser Runtime100% WebGPU (Carla Engine)
Median Latency0.04s – 0.51s

Key Strengths: Fastest execution in benchmark, native multivariate handling, in-browser privacy without server uploads.

Patch-based Transformer Decoder

Google — TimesFM

timesfm-3 / TimesFM-2.5
TokenizationContinuous Patches (32-time-step chunks)
Context Window512 steps standard context
In-Browser RuntimeServer / Cloud Only (PyTorch)
Median Latency3.41s

Key Strengths: High skill score (49.0%), strong long-context seasonal extrapolation on macroscopic benchmarks.

T5 Encoder-Decoder

AWS — Chronos Suite

Chronos-2 / Chronos-Bolt
TokenizationQuantized Language Tokens (4096 bins)
Context Window512 steps context window
In-Browser RuntimeServer / Cloud Only (Hugging Face / AWS)
Median Latency0.26s – 0.84s

Key Strengths: Proven probabilistic tokenization, fast Bolt variant, widespread Hugging Face integration.

Prior-Data Fitted Network (PFN)

Prior Labs — TabPFN-TS

TabPFN-TS-3 / TabPFN-TS
TokenizationIn-Context Synthetic Prior Conditioning
Context WindowShort-to-medium series
In-Browser RuntimeServer / Cloud Only (Prior Labs API)
Median Latency109s – 234s

Key Strengths: Accurate small-sample Bayesian posteriors without optimization loops, but heavy computational latency.

LOCAL WEBGPU INFERENCE

100% Client-Side Time Series AI with Carla Engine

Most foundation models require multi-GPU Python backend clusters or proprietary cloud APIs. Carla Engine compiles Mistral's Timestral-123M into quantized WebGPU compute shaders, enabling zero-server probabilistic forecasts directly inside Google Sheets with sub-second execution and zero data leakage.

CURATED BENCHMARKS

Explore 20 Real-World Forecasting Datasets

Inspect electricity load, retail sales, weather telemetry, and hospital emergency admissions with open Google Sheets spreadsheets and precomputed rolling evaluation windows.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Time Series Foundation Models & fev-bench FAQ

Common questions regarding model rankings, benchmark methodology, Scaled Quantile Loss, and client-side browser execution.

What is fev-bench and how are time-series models evaluated?

fev-bench is an open-source empirical time-series forecasting benchmark developed by AutoGluon researchers. It evaluates 41 foundation models, deep learning architectures, gradient-boosted trees, and statistical baselines across 100 standardized, diverse real-world tasks using rolling evaluation windows and probabilistic metrics including Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL) and Mean Absolute Scaled Error (MASE).

Why is Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL) the primary metric for time series foundation models?

Point forecasts (such as RMSE or MAE) do not account for forecast uncertainty. Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL) evaluates probabilistic forecasts across 9 quantile levels (p10 to p90), penalizing both point prediction deviations and quantile miscalibration, while scaling errors by the in-sample mean absolute difference to allow scale-invariant comparison across heterogeneous datasets.

Which model ranks #1 on fev-bench?

Timestral-209M from Mistral AI achieves the #1 global ranking with an 87.72% aggregate win rate and 50.39% skill score relative to Seasonal Naive. Timestral-123M (Carla Engine) ranks #2 globally with an 86.85% win rate and 0.32s median latency.

Can Timestral foundation models run directly in the browser via WebGPU?

Yes. Carla Engine executes Mistral's Timestral-123M 100% locally in-browser using quantized WebGPU WGSL compute shaders. Sensitive enterprise telemetry, energy meter data, financial records, and medical admissions never leave the user's machine.

How do foundation models compare against LightGBM and CatBoost on time-series?

While gradient boosted trees excel on static tabular data, time series forecasting requires modeling temporal dynamics and multi-step joint distributions. Without manual task-specific lag feature engineering, LightGBM achieves only an 17.8% win rate on fev-bench, whereas zero-shot foundation models (like Timestral) score 86%+ out of the box with zero feature engineering.