BenchLeader

LLM Benchmarks (October 2026): every benchmark, its leader and how far to trust it

As of 21 Oct 2026, BenchLeader tracks 229 LLM benchmarks from 43 publishers. The most useful today are CritPt and SimpleBench (reasoning), LiveCodeBench and Arena WebDev (coding), τ³-Banking (agents), Arena Maths (maths), MMMU-Pro (multimodal) and Arena Text (human preference); older tests like MMLU, MATH Level 5 and ARC (AI2 Challenge) are retired or saturated.

Last updated · rebuilt daily

benchmarks
229
publishers
43
models covered
751
last updated
21 Oct 2026

Jump to: Reasoning · Coding · Agents & tool use · Maths · Knowledge · Instruction following · Human preference (arenas) · Multimodal · Long context · Safety & honesty · Composite indices

The benchmarks that matter in 2026

The most informative live board in each category: it feeds the BenchLeader Index, covers many models and has not been saturated.

BenchmarkCategoryWhat it measuresLeader todayStatus
CritPtReasoningUnpublished physics research problems at the level of a first PhD project…Muse Wonder Full (max) 32.9%Active
SimpleBenchReasoningTrick questions where humans score ~84%: spatio-temporal reasoning and social intelligence.Claude Fable 5 (max) 81.9%Active
LiveCodeBenchCodingCompetitive programming problems released after model cutoffs. Run by Vals AI.Claude Fable 5.1 90.5%Near-saturated
Arena WebDevCodingPairwise votes on generated web apps.Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 1807Judge-based
τ³-Banking (AA)Agents & tool useArtificial Analysis' τ²-Bench banking-domain run: a support agent using tools with a…Qwen3.8 Max (max) 51.3%Harness-dependent
Arena MathsMathsText arena rating on maths prompts.Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1529Judge-based
AA-OmniscienceKnowledgeKnowledge recall that penalises hallucination: correct answers minus confident wrong ones, from…Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 46.4Active
IFBenchInstruction followingPrecise instruction following on unseen constraints. Run by Artificial Analysis.Grok 4.3 (medium) 83.3%Near-saturated
Arena TextHuman preference (arenas)Overall text arena rating with style control.Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1524Judge-based
MMMU-ProMultimodalCollege-level multimodal understanding. Run by Artificial Analysis.Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 87.7%Near-saturated
AA-LCRLong contextLong-context reasoning across ~100k-token document sets. Run by Artificial Analysis.Kimi K3 (max) 88.7%Near-saturated
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Composite indicesArtificial Analysis' composite of its own evaluations (GPQA, HLE, IFBench, LCR, τ²-Bench…Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 57.6Active

Reasoning benchmarks: CritPt, SimpleBench and Humanity's Last Exam

Reasoning benchmarks ask questions that cannot be answered by recall alone: graduate-level science (GPQA Diamond's 198 questions), expert questions written to defeat search (Humanity's Last Exam, about 2,500 of them), abstract grid puzzles (ARC-AGI) and trick questions humans find easy (SimpleBench).

Use them for: research assistants, analysis and anything where a wrong chain of thought is costly.

Caveat: MMLU is saturated and no longer separates frontier models: use MMLU-Pro, GPQA Diamond or Humanity's Last Exam instead.

Current leader on CritPt: Muse Wonder Full (max) at 32.9%.

BenchmarkWhat it measuresLeaderModelsCaveat
CritPtUnpublished physics research problems at the level of a first PhD project. Run by…Muse Wonder Full (max) 32.9%550Active
SimpleBenchTrick questions where humans score ~84%: spatio-temporal reasoning and social intelligence.Claude Fable 5 (max) 81.9%87Active
Humanity's Last Exam2,500 expert-written questions across 100+ subjects (Scale AI / CAIS).GPT-6 Astra 54.8%48Active
Arena Hard PromptsText arena rating on prompts judged hard.Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1549384Judge-based
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi's unpublished reasoning, coding and instruction questions.Claude Fable 5 (thinking) 91.4%136Near-saturated
+29 more reasoning benchmarks

Coding benchmarks: LiveCodeBench, Arena WebDev and SWE-bench Verified (bash only)

Coding benchmarks range from contest problems published after a model's training cut-off (LiveCodeBench) to real GitHub issues fixed end to end and checked by the repository's own tests (SWE-bench Verified, 500 issues; SWE-Bench Pro in private repositories) and edits made through a real coding agent (Aider Polyglot, 225 exercises).

Use them for: choosing a model for code generation, review and autonomous coding agents.

Caveat: HumanEval is saturated, and on SWE-bench the harness and scaffold move scores as much as the model does: compare like with like (BenchLeader shows the bash-only harness separately).

Current leader on LiveCodeBench: Claude Fable 5.1 at 90.5%.

BenchmarkWhat it measuresLeaderModelsCaveat
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive programming problems released after model cutoffs. Run by Vals AI.Claude Fable 5.1 90.5%137Near-saturated
Arena WebDevPairwise votes on generated web apps.Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 1807136Judge-based
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)Official SWE-bench Verified results from the minimal bash-only mini-SWE-agent harness.Claude Opus 4.5 (high) 76.8%45Harness-dependent
SWE-Bench ProLong-horizon software engineering tasks in public repositories. Scale AI.Muse Spark 1.1 61.5%24Harness-dependent
Arena CodingText arena rating on coding prompts.Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1559379Judge-based
+32 more coding benchmarks

Agents & tool use benchmarks: τ³-Banking (AA), Terminal-Bench and BFCL Overall

Agent benchmarks put the model in an environment and score the outcome: a shell (Terminal-Bench), a customer-service conversation with tools and an uncooperative user (τ²-bench), function calling (BFCL), the Model Context Protocol (MCP Atlas) or a real desktop (OSWorld).

Use them for: tool-calling products, automation and long multi-step tasks.

Caveat: Harness effects are large: the same model can move 10–20 percentage points with a different scaffold, prompt or tool set, so scores from different harnesses are not comparable.

Current leader on τ³-Banking (AA): Qwen3.8 Max (max) at 51.3%.

BenchmarkWhat it measuresLeaderModelsCaveat
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis' τ²-Bench banking-domain run: a support agent using tools with a simulated customer.Qwen3.8 Max (max) 51.3%202Harness-dependent
Terminal-BenchCommand-line agent tasks; best result per model across harnesses.GPT-5.5 84.7%84Harness-dependent
BFCL OverallBerkeley Function Calling Leaderboard overall accuracy.Claude Opus 4.5 77.5%83Harness-dependent
MCP AtlasReal-world tool use through the Model Context Protocol. Scale AI.Muse Spark 1.1 88.1%33Near-saturated
τ²-benchMean pass^1 across the airline, retail and telecom domains.Qwen3.5 397B A17B (thinking) 87.9%8Harness-dependent
+54 more agents & tool use benchmarks

Maths benchmarks: Arena Maths, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 and Omni-MATH (HELM)

Maths benchmarks run from competition problems (AIME, HMMT, IMO, scored by MathArena on release day before anyone can train on them) to unpublished research-level problems (FrontierMath) and fully written proofs (ProofBench).

Use them for: quantitative analysis, scientific work and checking multi-step precision.

Caveat: GSM8K and MATH are saturated, and older AIME sets carry contamination risk because the problems are public: prefer FrontierMath and each new competition on MathArena.

Current leader on Arena Maths: Gemini 4 Argon (high) at 1529.

BenchmarkWhat it measuresLeaderModelsCaveat
Arena MathsText arena rating on maths prompts.Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1529370Judge-based
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Unpublished research-level maths problems, tiers 1–3 (v2 private set). Run by Epoch AI.GPT-6 Astra (max) 93.7%117Near-saturated
Omni-MATH (HELM)Olympiad-level maths problems. Run by Stanford CRFM's HELM.GPT-5 mini 72.2%68Active
MathArena ApexThe hardest problems from recent competitions. MathArena.Claude Opus 4.8 (max) 81.3%46Active
IMO 2025International Mathematical Olympiad 2025, proof-graded. MathArena.GPT-5 (high) 38.1%6Active
+12 more maths benchmarks

Knowledge benchmarks: AA-Omniscience, SimpleQA Verified and LegalBench

Knowledge benchmarks test what a model knows and whether it admits what it does not: broad multiple choice (MMLU-Pro, ten options), short factual questions (SimpleQA Verified), hallucination-penalised recall (AA-Omniscience) and professional domains such as law, tax, finance and medicine.

Use them for: question answering, domain assistants and anything where a confident wrong answer is the main risk.

Caveat: Static multiple-choice sets leak into training data over time; boards that penalise wrong answers (AA-Omniscience, SimpleQA Verified) say more than raw accuracy.

Current leader on AA-Omniscience: Claude Opus 5.5 (max) at 46.4.

BenchmarkWhat it measuresLeaderModelsCaveat
AA-OmniscienceKnowledge recall that penalises hallucination: correct answers minus confident wrong ones, from −100 to…Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 46.4547Active
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions; measures recall without hallucination. Run by Epoch AI.Gemini 4 Argon (high) 76.0%86Active
LegalBenchLegal reasoning tasks written by lawyers. Run by Vals AI.Claude Fable 5 88.6%143Near-saturated
TaxEvalUS tax questions checked by professionals. Run by Vals AI.Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) 80.4%138Active
CorpFinQuestions over real corporate finance documents. Run by Vals AI.Claude Opus 5 73.2%124Active
+25 more knowledge benchmarks

Instruction following benchmarks: IFBench, MultiChallenge and WildBench (HELM)

Instruction-following benchmarks check whether a model does exactly what it was told: verifiable formatting and length constraints (IFBench, IFEval), multi-turn conversations that test memory of earlier instructions (MultiChallenge) and open-ended tasks judged against a checklist (WildBench).

Use them for: structured output, pipelines that parse model output and assistants with strict house rules.

Caveat: Constraint checkers are reliable but narrow; judge-scored boards measure more but inherit the judge model's preferences.

Current leader on IFBench: Grok 4.3 (medium) at 83.3%.

BenchmarkWhat it measuresLeaderModelsCaveat
IFBenchPrecise instruction following on unseen constraints. Run by Artificial Analysis.Grok 4.3 (medium) 83.3%420Near-saturated
MultiChallengeMulti-turn instruction following under realistic conversation constraints. Scale AI.GPT-6.1 Sol 82.0%31Active
WildBench (HELM)Real user tasks graded by a rubric-guided judge. Run by Stanford CRFM's HELM.Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 86.6%68Near-saturated
TutorBenchTutoring tasks for high-school and AP subjects. Scale AI.Muse Spark 68.5%27Judge-based
Arena Instruction FollowingText arena rating on prompts with explicit instructions.Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1527384Judge-based
+3 more instruction following benchmarks

Human preference (arenas) benchmarks: Arena Text, EQ-Bench 4 and Arena Creative Writing

Arenas show two anonymous answers to a real user and ask which is better; many thousands of votes become a rating. They are the only large-scale measure of what people prefer, which is not the same as what is correct.

Use them for: chat products, writing and anything judged by how the answer reads.

Caveat: Ratings near the top have overlapping confidence intervals, so neighbouring ranks are often a tie, and voters favour longer, better-formatted answers (style bias) unless style control is applied.

Current leader on Arena Text: Gemini 4 Argon (high) at 1524.

BenchmarkWhat it measuresLeaderModelsCaveat
Arena TextOverall text arena rating with style control.Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1524384Judge-based
EQ-Bench 4Emotional intelligence in multi-turn role-play, judged pairwise into an Elo-style rating.Claude Opus 5 138527Judge-based
Arena Creative WritingText arena rating on creative-writing prompts.Claude Opus 5.5 (high) 1519382Judge-based
Arena Multi-turnText arena rating on conversations with more than one turn.Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1552382Judge-based
Arena Longer QueriesText arena rating on long prompts.Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1543362Judge-based
+1 more human preference (arenas) benchmarks

Multimodal benchmarks: MMMU-Pro, Arena Vision and VISTA

Multimodal benchmarks pair images, charts, documents, video or audio with questions: college-level visual reasoning (MMMU-Pro), spatial and visual puzzles, video understanding (Video-MME) and arena votes on image prompts.

Use them for: document and chart understanding, screenshots, vision features and audio.

Caveat: The original MMMU can often be answered from the text alone; MMMU-Pro removes those questions and adds ten answer options, so prefer it.

Current leader on MMMU-Pro: Claude Opus 5.5 (max) at 87.7%.

BenchmarkWhat it measuresLeaderModelsCaveat
MMMU-ProCollege-level multimodal understanding. Run by Artificial Analysis.Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 87.7%281Near-saturated
Arena VisionPairwise votes on image-understanding prompts.Claude Fable 5 (high) 1325159Judge-based
VISTAVision-language understanding. Scale AI.Gemini 2.5 Pro 54.6%57Active
MMMU (validation)Official MMMU validation-set leaderboard.GPT-5.1 85.4%50Near-saturated
MortgageTaxReading tax certificate images and extracting the figures. Run by Vals AI.Claude Opus 5 72.1%93Active
+17 more multimodal benchmarks

Long context benchmarks: AA-LCR, Fiction.LiveBench 120k and MLCR

Long-context benchmarks test whether a model still reasons correctly over tens or hundreds of thousands of tokens, which the advertised context window does not tell you: AA-LCR asks questions across long document sets, Fiction.LiveBench tracks plot details through long stories.

Use them for: retrieval-heavy assistants, contract and codebase analysis, long chats.

Caveat: Needle-in-a-haystack tests are saturated (finding one planted sentence is easy now); multi-hop questions that combine facts from across the context are the real test.

Current leader on AA-LCR: Kimi K3 (max) at 88.7%.

BenchmarkWhat it measuresLeaderModelsCaveat
AA-LCRLong-context reasoning across ~100k-token document sets. Run by Artificial Analysis.Kimi K3 (max) 88.7%542Near-saturated
Fiction.LiveBench 120kLong-context comprehension of fiction at 120k tokens.o3 (medium) 100.0%35Near-saturated
MLCRMedical long-context reasoning: clinical questions answered over long patient records, scored on accuracy, completeness…Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) 75.0%92Active
Arena DocumentPairwise votes on answers about uploaded documents.Claude Fable 5 149944Judge-based

Safety & honesty benchmarks: FORTRESS, PropensityBench and MASK

Safety and honesty benchmarks measure whether a model refuses genuinely harmful requests without over-refusing (FORTRESS), says what it believes under pressure to lie (MASK) and avoids risky actions when given the means (PropensityBench).

Use them for: deployment risk reviews and regulated or user-facing products.

Caveat: None of these feed the BenchLeader Index; results depend heavily on the system prompt and the provider's safety layer, so read them as indicators, not guarantees.

Current leader on FORTRESS: DeepSeek R1 at 74.4%.

BenchmarkWhat it measuresLeaderModelsCaveat
FORTRESSRobustness to harmful requests without over-refusing benign ones. Scale AI.DeepSeek R1 74.4%68Active
PropensityBenchHow readily an agent takes harmful actions when pressured in agentic settings. Scale AI.Gemini 2.5 Pro 79.0%14Active
MASKWhether a model states what it believes when pressured to lie. Scale AI.Claude Opus 4.6 (no reasoning) 96.3%64Saturated

Composite indices benchmarks: AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2, LiveBench 2.0 and Epoch Capabilities Index

Composite indices combine many benchmarks into one number: Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index, Epoch's Capabilities Index, LiveBench and the HELM and Vals aggregates. The BenchLeader Index is one of these, built from all of the categories above.

Use them for: a first shortlist, before checking the categories that matter for your task.

Caveat: Each index weights different benchmarks, so their rankings disagree near the top; a composite is only as good as the boards it averages.

Current leader on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2: Claude Opus 5.5 (max) at 57.6.

BenchmarkWhat it measuresLeaderModelsCaveat
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis' composite of its own evaluations (GPQA, HLE, IFBench, LCR, τ²-Bench, Terminal-Bench Hard…Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 57.6626Active
LiveBench 2.0Average of LiveBench 2.0's seven suite scores (long agentic, reasoning, coding, browser use, data…Claude Fable 5.1 88.0%48Near-saturated
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI's own composite capability score fitted across many benchmarks. Shown for reference; not…Claude Opus 5.5 168.8245Active
HELM Capabilities meanMean of HELM's five capability scenarios. Shown for reference.GPT-5 mini 81.9%68Active
LiveBench 1.0Average of LiveBench 1.0's seven category scores, frozen at its final release (25 June…Claude Fable 5.1 (max) 83.4%67Near-saturated
+3 more composite indices benchmarks

Saturated or retired benchmarks, and what to use instead

Saturated: the fifth-best model scores 90% or more, so the top is separated by noise. Retired: no new result for a year. Both are decided from the data and change as scores do.

BenchmarkStatusBest / 5th bestUse instead
GPQA Diamond (AA)Saturated96.3% / 94.1%Humanity's Last Exam, CritPt
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Saturated99.1% / 98.5%τ³-Banking (AA), Terminal-Bench
GPQA DiamondSaturated96.4% / 95.4%Humanity's Last Exam, CritPt
OTIS Mock AIMESaturated100.0% / 100.0%AIME 2026, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3
ARC-AGI-1Saturated98.5% / 98.5%ARC-AGI-2, ARC-AGI-3
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Saturated95.5% / 93.9%Humanity's Last Exam, CritPt
AIME (Vals)Saturated98.1% / 96.7%AIME 2026, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3
MedQASaturated96.5% / 96.1%MedScribe, AA-Omniscience
MGSMSaturated95.2% / 93.9%FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, AIME 2026
IFEval (HELM)Saturated95.1% / 92.9%IFBench, MultiChallenge
MATH 500Saturated96.4% / 95.2%FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, AIME 2026
MMLURetired (last result 26 Dec 2024)88.1% / 86.4%MMLU-Pro, GPQA Diamond, Humanity's Last Exam
MATH Level 5Retired (last result 15 Oct 2025)98.1% / 97.7%FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, HMMT February 2026
ARC (AI2 Challenge)Retired (last result 26 Dec 2024)95.3% / 91.6%ARC-AGI-2, GPQA Diamond
WinoGrandeRetired (last result 26 Dec 2024)89.2% / 86.3%SimpleBench, Humanity's Last Exam
GSM8KRetired (last result 29 Nov 2024)94.5% / 91.3%FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, AIME 2026
HellaSwagRetired (last result 26 Dec 2024)95.3% / 87.1%SimpleBench, Humanity's Last Exam
PIQARetired (last result 26 Dec 2024)88.7% / 84.9%SimpleBench, ARC-AGI-2
BIG-Bench HardRetired (last result 26 Dec 2024)89.2% / 81.4%Humanity's Last Exam, SimpleBench
OpenBookQARetired (last result 23 Apr 2024)88.0% / 85.8%MMLU-Pro, GPQA Diamond
TriviaQARetired (last result 26 Dec 2024)87.6% / 86.0%SimpleQA Verified, AA-Omniscience
LAMBADARetired (last result 30 Nov 2023)87.2% / 78.5%Fiction.LiveBench 120k, AA-LCR
ScienceQARetired (last result 16 Aug 2024)91.3% / 74.2%MMMU-Pro, GPQA Diamond
ANLIRetired (last result 23 Apr 2024)58.1% / 55.2%SimpleBench, Humanity's Last Exam
SuperGLUERetired (last result 27 Jan 2022)88.9% / 76.2%MMLU-Pro, SimpleBench
CommonsenseQA 2Retired (last result 18 Jul 2023)67.8% / 52.9%SimpleBench, Kagi LLM Benchmark
HumanEvalSaturated (not tracked)164 hand-written Python functions; top models solve nearly all of them.LiveCodeBench, SWE-Bench Pro
Needle in a haystackSaturated (not tracked)Finding one planted sentence in a long context; near-perfect for current models.AA-LCR, Fiction.LiveBench 120k

How BenchLeader picks the leader

BenchLeader runs no evaluations of its own. Once a day it reads the published results of 43 benchmark publishers, matches the different names they use for the same model, and records each model at every reasoning-effort setting it was run at. The leader of a benchmark is the model configuration with the best published score on that board, shown with its effort. Launch-post numbers that no independent evaluator has reproduced are not used. 77 of the 229 benchmarks feed the BenchLeader Index: each score is standardised against the other models on the same board (mean 50, standard deviation 15), averaged within its category with the weight shown on the benchmark page (some boards count half), and models with few results are shrunk toward the average until more evidence arrives. The full method is on the methodology page.

Best LLMs by use case

Benchmarks are the evidence; these are the verdicts. Each list ranks models for one job from the boards above, as of October 2026.

All best-LLM lists

Search every benchmark

Filter all 229 boards by name, publisher or topic, with each one's leader, model count and index weight.

Other indices

  • AA Openness Index: How open a model actually is: weights, licence, training details and reproducibility. A measure of openness, not capability, so it is never part of the quality index.

Download the data

The benchmark catalogue as JSON or CSV, and the top 100 models on the index as JSON or CSV. New posts and the daily digest are on the Atom feed. The catalogue (descriptions, categories, status labels and caveats) is BenchLeader's, licensed CC BY-NC 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/): non-commercial use with attribution by link to https://www.benchleader.com. Each leader's score is the benchmark publisher's figure and remains under its publisher's terms (credited per row).

LLM benchmarks: questions people ask

What are LLM benchmarks?
LLM benchmarks are fixed tests that score language models on a defined task, such as answering graduate science questions, fixing real GitHub issues or following formatting rules, so different models can be compared on the same questions. BenchLeader tracks 229 of them from 43 publishers and does not run any itself: every score comes from the evaluator that published it and links back to it.
What are the most important LLM benchmarks in 2026?
Judged by what still separates frontier models and how many models they cover, the most useful boards today are CritPt, SimpleBench, LiveCodeBench, Arena WebDev, τ³-Banking, Arena Maths, AA-Omniscience, IFBench, Arena Text, MMMU-Pro, AA-LCR and AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2. Each feeds the BenchLeader Index. Older tests such as MMLU, MATH Level 5 and ARC (AI2 Challenge) no longer separate the best models.
Which LLM is best on benchmarks right now?
As of 21 Oct 2026, Claude Opus 5.5 (max) leads the BenchLeader Index at 72.7, ahead of Gemini 4 Argon (high) at 71.0. The index combines 77 benchmarks across reasoning, coding, agents, maths, knowledge and more; gaps of a point or two are within its uncertainty, so neighbouring ranks are close to a tie.
What is the best benchmark for coding?
For coding the most informative boards today are LiveCodeBench, led by Claude Fable 5.1 at 90.5% and Arena WebDev, led by Claude Opus 5.5 (max) at 1807. Benchmarks built on real repositories, such as SWE-bench Verified and SWE-Bench Pro, are closest to day-to-day engineering work, but their scores depend on the agent harness, so compare results run with the same scaffold.
What does it mean when a benchmark is saturated?
A benchmark is saturated when the best models all score near the ceiling, so differences between them are noise. BenchLeader marks a percentage-scored board saturated when its fifth-best model scores 90% or more, and retired when no new result has been published for a year. Today 29 boards are saturated and 22 are retired; the table above lists what to use instead.
What is benchmark contamination, and how do you spot it?
Contamination is when test questions, or their answers, end up in a model's training data, so a high score reflects memory rather than ability. Warning signs are a model scoring far better on an old public test than on a newer one of the same kind, or a jump on problems published before its training cut-off. Boards that refresh their questions (MathArena, LiveCodeBench) or keep them private (FrontierMath, SWE-Bench Pro) are much harder to contaminate.
Are LLM leaderboards reliable, and which should I trust?
A single leaderboard reflects one publisher's tasks, harness and settings, so rankings near the top often disagree. Trust boards that publish their method, re-run models themselves, report uncertainty and say which reasoning effort was used. BenchLeader lines up every independent board side by side, takes no self-reported launch numbers and shows the interval on its index, so you can see where boards agree and where a lead is within noise.
What is the difference between LLM benchmarks and LLM evaluation?
A benchmark is a fixed, public test with a score that anyone can compare. Evaluation is the broader job of deciding whether a model fits your use: it includes benchmarks, but also your own prompts and data, human review, cost and latency limits and safety checks. Benchmarks are the best way to build a shortlist; your own evaluation decides between the finalists.
How often are LLM benchmark scores updated?
BenchLeader refreshes every benchmark once a day (the run starts at 22:03 UTC), when it re-reads each publisher's latest results. Publishers update on their own schedules: as of 21 Oct 2026, 113 of the 229 boards published a new result in the previous 30 days. Each benchmark page shows the date of every score.
What is the hardest AI benchmark?
By today's best scores, the hardest boards that feed the index are Remote Labor Index (best 21.3%), OSWorld-Verified 2.0 (best 31.4%) and CritPt (best 32.9%). Humanity's Last Exam, FrontierMath and ARC-AGI were each built to stay unsolved for years, but leading scores move quickly, so this answer is recomputed from the data every day.