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.
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.
| Rank | Method / Model | Family | Organization | 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-Browser | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Timestral-209M | Foundation Model | Mistral AI | 87.7% | +50.4% | 86.0% | 0.51s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #2 | Timestral-123M (Carla Engine)CARLA ENGINE | Foundation Model | Mistral AI | 86.8% | +50.2% | 85.0% | 0.32s | 100% WebGPU | Repo ↗ |
| #3 | TimeRSI | Closed-Source API | GaTech & SamayLabs | 84.8% | +51.2% | 83.8% | 2512s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #4 | t0-gamma | Foundation Model | The Forecasting Company | 84.4% | +49.4% | 81.8% | 4.38s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #5 | Timestral-28M | Foundation Model | Mistral AI | 79.2% | +48.4% | 77.0% | 0.11s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #6 | timesfm-3 | Foundation Model | 78.5% | +49.0% | 77.0% | 3.41s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ | |
| #7 | ChakraTS | Baseline | Community | 78.2% | +48.1% | 79.5% | 14.22s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #8 | Lingjiang2.0 | Baseline | Community | 73.9% | +47.0% | 71.3% | 8.89s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #9 | Chronos-2 | Foundation Model | AWS | 70.4% | +47.3% | 68.4% | 0.84s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #10 | timeh2o-v1-tiny | Foundation Model | H2O.ai | 69.9% | +45.5% | 67.0% | 0.19s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #11 | Timestral-5M | Foundation Model | Mistral AI | 69.0% | +46.2% | 67.7% | 40ms | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #12 | Toto-2.0-2.5B | Baseline | Community | 67.5% | +44.4% | 65.7% | 5.58s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #13 | t0-beta | Foundation Model | The Forecasting Company | 67.4% | +46.6% | 64.5% | 2.29s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #14 | Toto-2.0-1B | Baseline | Community | 66.4% | +44.4% | 65.5% | 2.48s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #15 | TiRex-2 | Foundation Model | NX-AI | 65.8% | +45.5% | 63.4% | 0.27s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #16 | Toto-2.0-313m | Baseline | Community | 65.1% | +44.2% | 63.5% | 1.06s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #17 | TiRex | Foundation Model | NX-AI | 58.0% | +42.6% | 54.1% | 0.24s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #18 | Toto-2.0-22m | Baseline | Community | 57.6% | +42.9% | 56.0% | 0.25s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #19 | TimesFM-2.5 | Baseline | Community | 54.6% | +42.2% | 53.5% | 1.87s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #20 | TabPFN-TS-3 | Foundation Model | Prior Labs | 52.4% | +43.1% | 51.3% | 235s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #21 | TS-ICL | Foundation Model | EDF-Lab | 51.2% | +43.1% | 49.8% | 2.49s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #22 | FlowState | Foundation Model | IBM | 49.3% | +39.9% | 49.9% | 2.29s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #23 | citras-fm | Foundation Model | Hitachi | 48.8% | +41.2% | 46.9% | 0.60s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #24 | Toto-1.0 | Baseline | Community | 47.5% | +40.8% | 45.9% | 22.35s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #25 | TabPFN-TS | Foundation Model | Prior Labs | 47.3% | +41.5% | 45.4% | 109s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #26 | Toto-2.0-4m | Baseline | Community | 46.2% | +40.7% | 43.6% | 0.20s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #27 | Moirai-2.0 | Baseline | Community | 41.9% | +39.3% | 40.5% | 0.35s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #28 | Chronos-Bolt | Foundation Model | AWS | 41.4% | +38.9% | 39.3% | 0.26s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #29 | TFT | Deep Learning | — | 31.7% | +32.2% | 29.2% | 829s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #30 | Stat. Ensemble | Baseline | Community | 27.5% | +20.7% | 30.6% | 147s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #31 | Sundial-Base | Foundation Model | Tsinghua University | 27.4% | +33.4% | 33.6% | 8.01s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #32 | PatchTST | Deep Learning | — | 26.8% | +30.1% | 25.1% | 664s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #33 | DeepAR | Deep Learning | — | 26.1% | +29.1% | 23.6% | 1113s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #34 | AutoARIMA | Statistical Baseline | — | 23.3% | +21.3% | 21.5% | 20.14s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #35 | AutoETS | Statistical Baseline | — | 20.3% | -26.8% | 22.5% | 3.48s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #36 | CatBoost | Tree Ensemble | — | 19.1% | +23.0% | 35.1% | 29.48s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #37 | LightGBM | Tree Ensemble | — | 17.8% | +21.0% | 33.1% | 3.03s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #38 | AutoTheta | Statistical Baseline | — | 15.6% | +5.5% | 19.8% | 3.28s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #39 | Seasonal Naive | Baseline | Community | 10.3% | 0.0% | 11.8% | 0.48s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #40 | Naive | Statistical Baseline | — | 6.7% | -45.4% | 10.9% | 0.47s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
| #41 | Drift | Statistical Baseline | — | 6.1% | -45.8% | 10.0% | 0.45s | Server / Cloud | Repo ↗ |
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.
| Model Matchup | Timestral-209M | Timestral-123M | t0-gamma | TimesFM-3 | Chronos-2 | TabPFN-TS-3 | LightGBM | Seasonal Naive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timestral-209MMistral AI | — | [60 - 38]↗ | [58 - 42]↗ | [75 - 25]↗ | [80 - 20]↗ | [85 - 15]↗ | [99 - 1]↗ | [100 - 0]↗ |
| Timestral-123MMistral AI | [38 - 60]↗ | — | [55 - 45]↗ | [72 - 28]↗ | [80 - 20]↗ | [86 - 14]↗ | [99 - 1]↗ | [100 - 0]↗ |
| t0-gammaThe Forecasting Co. | [42 - 58]↗ | [45 - 55]↗ | — | [54 - 46]↗ | [74 - 26]↗ | [87 - 13]↗ | [100 - 0]↗ | [100 - 0]↗ |
| TimesFM-3Google | [25 - 75]↗ | [28 - 72]↗ | [46 - 54]↗ | — | [71 - 28]↗ | [82 - 18]↗ | [99 - 1]↗ | [100 - 0]↗ |
| Chronos-2AWS | [20 - 80]↗ | [20 - 80]↗ | [26 - 74]↗ | [28 - 71]↗ | — | [78 - 21]↗ | [97 - 3]↗ | [100 - 0]↗ |
| TabPFN-TS-3Prior Labs | [15 - 85]↗ | [14 - 86]↗ | [13 - 87]↗ | [18 - 82]↗ | [21 - 78]↗ | — | [91 - 9]↗ | [100 - 0]↗ |
| LightGBMAutoGluon Baseline | [1 - 99]↗ | [1 - 99]↗ | [0 - 100]↗ | [1 - 99]↗ | [3 - 97]↗ | [9 - 91]↗ | — | [68 - 32]↗ |
| Seasonal NaiveReference Baseline | [0 - 100]↗ | [0 - 100]↗ | [0 - 100]↗ | [0 - 100]↗ | [0 - 100]↗ | [0 - 100]↗ | [32 - 68]↗ | — |
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.
Timestral-123M vs Google TimesFM-3
Mistral AI vs Google • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)
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).
Timestral-123M vs AWS Chronos-2
Mistral AI vs AWS • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)
Continuous causal attention in Timestral outperforms discrete T5 tokenization on 80 of 100 benchmark tasks with full multivariate support.
Timestral-123M vs Prior Labs TabPFN-TS-3
Mistral AI vs Prior Labs • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)
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).
Timestral-123M vs The Forecasting Co. t0-gamma
Mistral AI vs The Forecasting Company • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)
Competitive matchup against closed-weights t0-gamma, with Timestral executing 13x faster with full client-side WebGPU browser execution.
Timestral-123M vs LightGBM Lag Baseline
Mistral AI vs AutoGluon Baseline • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)
Zero-shot foundation model outperforms manually lag-engineered gradient boosted trees on 99 out of 100 tasks with zero hyperparameter search.
Timestral-209M vs Google TimesFM-3
Mistral AI vs Google • Scaled Quantile Loss (SQL)
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.
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.
Mistral AI — Timestral Suite
Timestral-209M / 123M / 28M / 5MKey Strengths: Fastest execution in benchmark, native multivariate handling, in-browser privacy without server uploads.
Google — TimesFM
timesfm-3 / TimesFM-2.5Key Strengths: High skill score (49.0%), strong long-context seasonal extrapolation on macroscopic benchmarks.
AWS — Chronos Suite
Chronos-2 / Chronos-BoltKey Strengths: Proven probabilistic tokenization, fast Bolt variant, widespread Hugging Face integration.
Prior Labs — TabPFN-TS
TabPFN-TS-3 / TabPFN-TSKey Strengths: Accurate small-sample Bayesian posteriors without optimization loops, but heavy computational latency.
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.
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.
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.