Benchmark Almanac

AgenticDataBench

Kimi K2.5 48.8% leads since July 2026
Not in model cards

Data agents carry out data science workflows over raw, mixed data and are scored at a fine-grained level across many scenarios.

It had 35 Hugging Face paper upvotes and 43 GitHub stars.

Released
July 2026
Kind
Data science and SQL
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Sonnet 4.6 #56 on the capability index
Last model added
February 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Data science aims to derive actionable insights from heterogeneous raw data, unlocking the value of the massive amounts of data generated in modern society. Automating this process is essential to reducing labor-intensive efforts for data scientists and enabling scalable data-driven applications. Recently, large language model (LLM)-based data agents have emerged as a promising solution to automate data science workflows. However, the field lacks comprehensive benchmarks to rigorously evaluate these agents across diverse scenarios with fine-grained granularity. To address this gap, we propose AgenticDataBench, a comprehensive benchmark featuring realistic tasks spanning diverse domains with fine-grained ground-truth labels. This enables evaluations to capture the diversity and complexity of data science workflows and the detailed performance of agents. First, to cover diverse domains, we collect real datasets and tasks from 15 vertical domains, including 5 real-world B2B use cases from a leading fintech company. Second, to remove redundancy in real-world tasks and generate high-quality tasks for domains lacking real data, we introduce data science skills, recurring data-centric operational patterns, and quantify benchmark coverage by the number of skills included. Representative skills are extracted from large-scale task solutions on Stack Overflow using skill-aligned hierarchical clustering. Third, for real-world business tasks, we select task-solution pairs that maximize diversity in skill composition, ensuring broad coverage of practical scenarios. Fourth, to generate realistic tasks for devise domains without real tasks, we propose a systematic LLM-based task generation approach to create workflows and tasks based on these skills. Finally, we evaluate state-of-the-art data agents using our annotated benchmark and open-sourced testbed, providing detailed skill-level insights.

Abstract of AgenticDataBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Data Agents (arXiv:2607.01647, CC0)
3
Models scored on its own leaderboard

Kimi K2.5 leads with 48.8% among models released by February 2026

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.

The newest model with a score here came out in February 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Kimi K2.5 48.8%
  2. 2 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 47.1%
  3. 3 Claude Sonnet 4.6 46.7%

Source: Official AgenticDataBench leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Kimi K2.5 48.8% Codex Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 47.1% Smolagents Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Sonnet 4.6 46.7% Smolagents Feb 2026 Official leaderboard

Score versus cost

The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.

30% 40% 50% 60% $0$0.5$1$1.5$2 Cost per task ($), lower is better Score Kimi K2.5: Score 43.8%, cost per task $0.26 Kimi K2.5: Score 44.8%, cost per task $0.11 Kimi K2.5: Score 44.3%, cost per task $0.32 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Score 40.9%, cost per task $0.12 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Score 39.9%, cost per task $0.1 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Score 46.7%, cost per task $1.66 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Score 46.1%, cost per task $0.52 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Score 46.6%, cost per task $0.47 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Score 31.6%, cost per task $0.76 Kimi K2.5: Score 48.8%, cost per task $0.19 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Score 47.1%, cost per task $0.07 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Score 44.4%, cost per task $0.06 Kimi K2.5Qwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.5 397B-A17B 30% 40% 50% 60% $0$0.5$1$1.5$2 Cost per task ($), lower is better Score Kimi K2.5: Score 43.8%, cost per task $0.26 Kimi K2.5: Score 44.8%, cost per task $0.11 Kimi K2.5: Score 44.3%, cost per task $0.32 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Score 40.9%, cost per task $0.12 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Score 39.9%, cost per task $0.1 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Score 46.7%, cost per task $1.66 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Score 46.1%, cost per task $0.52 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Score 46.6%, cost per task $0.47 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Score 31.6%, cost per task $0.76 Kimi K2.5: Score 48.8%, cost per task $0.19 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Score 47.1%, cost per task $0.07 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Score 44.4%, cost per task $0.06 Kimi K2.5Qwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.5 397B-A17B
ModelSettingScoreCost per task
Kimi K2.5 Codex 48.8% $0.19
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B Smolagents 47.1% $0.07
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Smolagents 46.7% $1.66
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude Code 46.6% $0.47
Claude Sonnet 4.6 DA-Agent 46.1% $0.52
Kimi K2.5 DA-Agent 44.8% $0.11
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B DA-Agent 44.4% $0.06
Kimi K2.5 Claude Code 44.3% $0.32
Kimi K2.5 Smolagents 43.8% $0.26
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B Claude Code 40.9% $0.12
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B Codex 39.9% $0.1
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Codex 31.6% $0.76

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Moonshot AI
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jul 2026
Kimi K2.5 48.8%

Source: Official AgenticDataBench leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Kimi K2.5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Kimi K2.5

Source: Official AgenticDataBench leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Coding

All 282 in Coding
  • SWE-bench Verified In use 500 human-validated GitHub issues from 12 Python repos. Agent writes a patch that must pass hidden tests. Claude Opus 4.7 83.5%
  • LiveCodeBench v6 In use Competitive programming problems collected after model cutoffs from LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces. Scored pass@1 on hidden tests. DeepSeek-V4-Pro 93.5%
  • SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Fable 5.2 96.6%
  • DeepSWE In use 113 original long-horizon engineering tasks across 91 repos and five languages, written from scratch. Hand-written verifiers accept alternative solutions. GPT-6 Astra 74.1%
  • SciCode In use Scientist-curated research coding problems split into subproblems across natural sciences. Code checked against test cases. Seed2.1 Pro 59.8%
  • Codeforces rating In use Model solves recent Codeforces contest problems. An Elo-style rating is computed from simulated contest performance. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 3,471