Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support the analysis of complex financial disclosures, yet their reliability, behavioral consistency, and transparency remain insufficiently understood in high-stakes settings. This paper presents a controlled evaluation of five transformer-based LLMs applied to question answering over the Business sections of U.S. 10-K filings. To capture complementary aspects of model behavior, we combine human evaluation, automated similarity metrics, and behavioral diagnostics under standardized and context-controlled prompting conditions. Human assessments indicate that models differ in their average performance across qualitative dimensions such as relevance, completeness, clarity, conciseness, and factual accuracy, though inter-rater agreement is modest, reflecting the subjective nature of these criteria. Automated metrics reveal systematic differences in lexical overlap and semantic similarity across models, while behavioral diagnostics highlight variation in response stability and cross-prompt alignment. Importantly, no single model consistently dominates across all evaluation perspectives. Together, these findings suggest that apparent performance differences should be interpreted as relative tendencies under the tested conditions rather than definitive indicators of general reliability. The results underscore the need for evaluation frameworks that account for human disagreement, behavioral variability, and interpretability when deploying LLMs in financially consequential applications.