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.
| Benchmark | Category | What it measures | Leader today | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CritPt | Reasoning | Unpublished physics research problems at the level of a first PhD project… | Muse Wonder Full (max) 32.9% | Active |
| SimpleBench | Reasoning | Trick questions where humans score ~84%: spatio-temporal reasoning and social intelligence. | Claude Fable 5 (max) 81.9% | Active |
| LiveCodeBench | Coding | Competitive programming problems released after model cutoffs. Run by Vals AI. | Claude Fable 5.1 90.5% | Near-saturated |
| Arena WebDev | Coding | Pairwise votes on generated web apps. | Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 1807 | Judge-based |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Agents & tool use | Artificial Analysis' τ²-Bench banking-domain run: a support agent using tools with a… | Qwen3.8 Max (max) 51.3% | Harness-dependent |
| Arena Maths | Maths | Text arena rating on maths prompts. | Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1529 | Judge-based |
| AA-Omniscience | Knowledge | Knowledge recall that penalises hallucination: correct answers minus confident wrong ones, from… | Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 46.4 | Active |
| IFBench | Instruction following | Precise instruction following on unseen constraints. Run by Artificial Analysis. | Grok 4.3 (medium) 83.3% | Near-saturated |
| Arena Text | Human preference (arenas) | Overall text arena rating with style control. | Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1524 | Judge-based |
| MMMU-Pro | Multimodal | College-level multimodal understanding. Run by Artificial Analysis. | Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 87.7% | Near-saturated |
| AA-LCR | Long context | Long-context reasoning across ~100k-token document sets. Run by Artificial Analysis. | Kimi K3 (max) 88.7% | Near-saturated |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Composite indices | Artificial Analysis' composite of its own evaluations (GPQA, HLE, IFBench, LCR, τ²-Bench… | Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 57.6 | Active |
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%.
| Benchmark | What it measures | Leader | Models | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CritPt | Unpublished physics research problems at the level of a first PhD project. Run by… | Muse Wonder Full (max) 32.9% | 550 | Active |
| SimpleBench | Trick questions where humans score ~84%: spatio-temporal reasoning and social intelligence. | Claude Fable 5 (max) 81.9% | 87 | Active |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 2,500 expert-written questions across 100+ subjects (Scale AI / CAIS). | GPT-6 Astra 54.8% | 48 | Active |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Text arena rating on prompts judged hard. | Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1549 | 384 | Judge-based |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Kagi's unpublished reasoning, coding and instruction questions. | Claude Fable 5 (thinking) 91.4% | 136 | Near-saturated |
+29 more reasoning benchmarks
- Humanity's Last Exam (AA)
- GPQA Diamond (AA)
- GPQA Diamond
- ARC-AGI-2
- ARC-AGI-1
- DTBench
- LMCA
- Chess Puzzles
- Mystery Game Puzzles
- GPQA Diamond (Vals)
- ForecastBench
- ARC (AI2 Challenge)
- WinoGrande
- GPQA Diamond (HELM)
- HellaSwag
- LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning
- ARC-AGI-3
- PIQA
- LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning
- BIG-Bench Hard
- MysteryMechanism
- CL-bench
- CL-bench Life
- SciPredict
- BTF-3
- ANLI
- SuperGLUE
- CommonsenseQA 2
- EnigmaEval
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%.
| Benchmark | What it measures | Leader | Models | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench | Competitive programming problems released after model cutoffs. Run by Vals AI. | Claude Fable 5.1 90.5% | 137 | Near-saturated |
| Arena WebDev | Pairwise votes on generated web apps. | Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 1807 | 136 | Judge-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% | 45 | Harness-dependent |
| SWE-Bench Pro | Long-horizon software engineering tasks in public repositories. Scale AI. | Muse Spark 1.1 61.5% | 24 | Harness-dependent |
| Arena Coding | Text arena rating on coding prompts. | Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1559 | 379 | Judge-based |
+32 more coding benchmarks
- Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)
- SciCode (AA)
- Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)
- SciCode
- WeirdML
- ALE-Bench
- Vibe Code Bench v1.1
- SWE-bench (Vals)
- CursorBench
- Code Migration
- DeepSWE v1.1
- LiveBench 1.0 Coding
- ProgramBench
- Aider Polyglot
- LiveBench 2.0 Coding
- SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold)
- FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)
- FrontierCode
- IOI
- GSO-Bench
- SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)
- Startrise Frontend
- Surface Evolver Bench
- SWE-Bench Pro (private)
- Vibe Code Bench 1-100
- SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA
- SWE Atlas: Test Writing
- FrontierSWE
- AlgoTune
- SWE Atlas: Refactoring
- CadEval
- MirrorCode
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%.
| Benchmark | What it measures | Leader | Models | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 202 | Harness-dependent |
| Terminal-Bench | Command-line agent tasks; best result per model across harnesses. | GPT-5.5 84.7% | 84 | Harness-dependent |
| BFCL Overall | Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard overall accuracy. | Claude Opus 4.5 77.5% | 83 | Harness-dependent |
| MCP Atlas | Real-world tool use through the Model Context Protocol. Scale AI. | Muse Spark 1.1 88.1% | 33 | Near-saturated |
| τ²-bench | Mean pass^1 across the airline, retail and telecom domains. | Qwen3.5 397B A17B (thinking) 87.9% | 8 | Harness-dependent |
+54 more agents & tool use benchmarks
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)
- Terminal-Bench Hard
- GDPval-AA v2.1
- AutomationBench
- GDP.pdf (AA)
- Legal Research Bench
- Finance Agent v2
- Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
- Tax Agent Bench
- Vending-Bench 2
- LiveBench Agentic Coding
- Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)
- AA-Briefcase v1.1
- Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)
- APEX-Agents
- Arena Agent
- Analyst Agent (AA)
- Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)
- EnterpriseOps-Gym
- LiveBench Browser
- LiveBench Long Agentic
- CyberBench
- ITBench SRE (AA)
- Arena Search
- DeepResearch Bench
- Terminal-Bench Science
- BrowseComp
- METR Time Horizons
- BALROG
- APEX-Agents (AA)
- SkillsBench
- SREBench
- HiL-Bench
- Harvey LAB-AA v1.1
- τ³-bench Banking
- GBAEval
- FACTS Search
- Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark
- BrowseComp-Plus
- Cybench
- DeepSec-Bench (AA)
- CWE-Bench (AA)
- CyberGym end-to-end (AA)
- Poker Agent
- Remote Labor Index
- OSWorld-Verified 2.0
- TheAgentCompany
- Time Horizon Index: KSP
- DeepSearchQA
- PostTrainBench
- GDPval
- CUA-bench
- ExploitBench
- Web Search Index
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.
| Benchmark | What it measures | Leader | Models | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arena Maths | Text arena rating on maths prompts. | Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1529 | 370 | Judge-based |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Unpublished research-level maths problems, tiers 1–3 (v2 private set). Run by Epoch AI. | GPT-6 Astra (max) 93.7% | 117 | Near-saturated |
| Omni-MATH (HELM) | Olympiad-level maths problems. Run by Stanford CRFM's HELM. | GPT-5 mini 72.2% | 68 | Active |
| MathArena Apex | The hardest problems from recent competitions. MathArena. | Claude Opus 4.8 (max) 81.3% | 46 | Active |
| IMO 2025 | International Mathematical Olympiad 2025, proof-graded. MathArena. | GPT-5 (high) 38.1% | 6 | Active |
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.
| Benchmark | What it measures | Leader | Models | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA-Omniscience | Knowledge recall that penalises hallucination: correct answers minus confident wrong ones, from −100 to… | Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 46.4 | 547 | Active |
| SimpleQA Verified | Short factual questions; measures recall without hallucination. Run by Epoch AI. | Gemini 4 Argon (high) 76.0% | 86 | Active |
| LegalBench | Legal reasoning tasks written by lawyers. Run by Vals AI. | Claude Fable 5 88.6% | 143 | Near-saturated |
| TaxEval | US tax questions checked by professionals. Run by Vals AI. | Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) 80.4% | 138 | Active |
| CorpFin | Questions over real corporate finance documents. Run by Vals AI. | Claude Opus 5 73.2% | 124 | Active |
+25 more knowledge benchmarks
- AA-Omniscience: accuracy
- AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination
- MMLU-Pro
- MMLU
- MedScribe
- MedCode
- MedQA
- Excel Modeling Benchmark
- MMLU-Pro (HELM)
- LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis
- GDP.pdf
- CaseLaw v2
- LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis
- LiveBench Research
- Public Benefits Bench
- MultiNRC
- PRBench Legal
- OpenBookQA
- PRBench Finance
- TriviaQA
- EBR-bench
- BioMysteryBench
- LAMBADA
- DrugDiscoveryBench
- Global-MMLU-Lite (AA)
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%.
| Benchmark | What it measures | Leader | Models | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Precise instruction following on unseen constraints. Run by Artificial Analysis. | Grok 4.3 (medium) 83.3% | 420 | Near-saturated |
| MultiChallenge | Multi-turn instruction following under realistic conversation constraints. Scale AI. | GPT-6.1 Sol 82.0% | 31 | Active |
| WildBench (HELM) | Real user tasks graded by a rubric-guided judge. Run by Stanford CRFM's HELM. | Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 86.6% | 68 | Near-saturated |
| TutorBench | Tutoring tasks for high-school and AP subjects. Scale AI. | Muse Spark 68.5% | 27 | Judge-based |
| Arena Instruction Following | Text arena rating on prompts with explicit instructions. | Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1527 | 384 | Judge-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.
| Benchmark | What it measures | Leader | Models | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arena Text | Overall text arena rating with style control. | Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1524 | 384 | Judge-based |
| EQ-Bench 4 | Emotional intelligence in multi-turn role-play, judged pairwise into an Elo-style rating. | Claude Opus 5 1385 | 27 | Judge-based |
| Arena Creative Writing | Text arena rating on creative-writing prompts. | Claude Opus 5.5 (high) 1519 | 382 | Judge-based |
| Arena Multi-turn | Text arena rating on conversations with more than one turn. | Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1552 | 382 | Judge-based |
| Arena Longer Queries | Text arena rating on long prompts. | Gemini 4 Argon (high) 1543 | 362 | Judge-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%.
| Benchmark | What it measures | Leader | Models | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-Pro | College-level multimodal understanding. Run by Artificial Analysis. | Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 87.7% | 281 | Near-saturated |
| Arena Vision | Pairwise votes on image-understanding prompts. | Claude Fable 5 (high) 1325 | 159 | Judge-based |
| VISTA | Vision-language understanding. Scale AI. | Gemini 2.5 Pro 54.6% | 57 | Active |
| MMMU (validation) | Official MMMU validation-set leaderboard. | GPT-5.1 85.4% | 50 | Near-saturated |
| MortgageTax | Reading tax certificate images and extracting the figures. Run by Vals AI. | Claude Opus 5 72.1% | 93 | Active |
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%.
| Benchmark | What it measures | Leader | Models | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA-LCR | Long-context reasoning across ~100k-token document sets. Run by Artificial Analysis. | Kimi K3 (max) 88.7% | 542 | Near-saturated |
| Fiction.LiveBench 120k | Long-context comprehension of fiction at 120k tokens. | o3 (medium) 100.0% | 35 | Near-saturated |
| MLCR | Medical long-context reasoning: clinical questions answered over long patient records, scored on accuracy, completeness… | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) 75.0% | 92 | Active |
| Arena Document | Pairwise votes on answers about uploaded documents. | Claude Fable 5 1499 | 44 | Judge-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%.
| Benchmark | What it measures | Leader | Models | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FORTRESS | Robustness to harmful requests without over-refusing benign ones. Scale AI. | DeepSeek R1 74.4% | 68 | Active |
| PropensityBench | How readily an agent takes harmful actions when pressured in agentic settings. Scale AI. | Gemini 2.5 Pro 79.0% | 14 | Active |
| MASK | Whether a model states what it believes when pressured to lie. Scale AI. | Claude Opus 4.6 (no reasoning) 96.3% | 64 | Saturated |
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.
| Benchmark | What it measures | Leader | Models | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis' composite of its own evaluations (GPQA, HLE, IFBench, LCR, τ²-Bench, Terminal-Bench Hard… | Claude Opus 5.5 (max) 57.6 | 626 | Active |
| LiveBench 2.0 | Average of LiveBench 2.0's seven suite scores (long agentic, reasoning, coding, browser use, data… | Claude Fable 5.1 88.0% | 48 | Near-saturated |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI's own composite capability score fitted across many benchmarks. Shown for reference; not… | Claude Opus 5.5 168.8 | 245 | Active |
| HELM Capabilities mean | Mean of HELM's five capability scenarios. Shown for reference. | GPT-5 mini 81.9% | 68 | Active |
| LiveBench 1.0 | Average of LiveBench 1.0's seven category scores, frozen at its final release (25 June… | Claude Fable 5.1 (max) 83.4% | 67 | Near-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.
| Benchmark | Status | Best / 5th best | Use instead |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Saturated | 96.3% / 94.1% | Humanity's Last Exam, CritPt |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Saturated | 99.1% / 98.5% | τ³-Banking (AA), Terminal-Bench |
| GPQA Diamond | Saturated | 96.4% / 95.4% | Humanity's Last Exam, CritPt |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Saturated | 100.0% / 100.0% | AIME 2026, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 |
| ARC-AGI-1 | Saturated | 98.5% / 98.5% | ARC-AGI-2, ARC-AGI-3 |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Saturated | 95.5% / 93.9% | Humanity's Last Exam, CritPt |
| AIME (Vals) | Saturated | 98.1% / 96.7% | AIME 2026, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 |
| MedQA | Saturated | 96.5% / 96.1% | MedScribe, AA-Omniscience |
| MGSM | Saturated | 95.2% / 93.9% | FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, AIME 2026 |
| IFEval (HELM) | Saturated | 95.1% / 92.9% | IFBench, MultiChallenge |
| MATH 500 | Saturated | 96.4% / 95.2% | FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, AIME 2026 |
| MMLU | Retired (last result 26 Dec 2024) | 88.1% / 86.4% | MMLU-Pro, GPQA Diamond, Humanity's Last Exam |
| MATH Level 5 | Retired (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 |
| WinoGrande | Retired (last result 26 Dec 2024) | 89.2% / 86.3% | SimpleBench, Humanity's Last Exam |
| GSM8K | Retired (last result 29 Nov 2024) | 94.5% / 91.3% | FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, AIME 2026 |
| HellaSwag | Retired (last result 26 Dec 2024) | 95.3% / 87.1% | SimpleBench, Humanity's Last Exam |
| PIQA | Retired (last result 26 Dec 2024) | 88.7% / 84.9% | SimpleBench, ARC-AGI-2 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | Retired (last result 26 Dec 2024) | 89.2% / 81.4% | Humanity's Last Exam, SimpleBench |
| OpenBookQA | Retired (last result 23 Apr 2024) | 88.0% / 85.8% | MMLU-Pro, GPQA Diamond |
| TriviaQA | Retired (last result 26 Dec 2024) | 87.6% / 86.0% | SimpleQA Verified, AA-Omniscience |
| LAMBADA | Retired (last result 30 Nov 2023) | 87.2% / 78.5% | Fiction.LiveBench 120k, AA-LCR |
| ScienceQA | Retired (last result 16 Aug 2024) | 91.3% / 74.2% | MMMU-Pro, GPQA Diamond |
| ANLI | Retired (last result 23 Apr 2024) | 58.1% / 55.2% | SimpleBench, Humanity's Last Exam |
| SuperGLUE | Retired (last result 27 Jan 2022) | 88.9% / 76.2% | MMLU-Pro, SimpleBench |
| CommonsenseQA 2 | Retired (last result 18 Jul 2023) | 67.8% / 52.9% | SimpleBench, Kagi LLM Benchmark |
| HumanEval | Saturated (not tracked) | 164 hand-written Python functions; top models solve nearly all of them. | LiveCodeBench, SWE-Bench Pro |
| Needle in a haystack | Saturated (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.
- Best LLM overall (October 2026)Leader today: Claude Opus 5.5
- Best LLM for coding (October 2026)Leader today: Claude Opus 5.5
- Best LLM for agents (October 2026)Leader today: Grok 4.1 Fast
- Best cheap LLM (October 2026)Leader today: Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Best open-weights LLM (October 2026)Leader today: Kimi K3
- Fastest LLM (October 2026)Leader today: K2 Horizon 375B A23B
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.