Benchmark Almanac

AlignBench

Qwen3-235B-A22B 8.94 leads since April 2025
GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 8.00 leads since April 2024
Qwen3-235B-A22B 8.94 leads since April 2025
Dropped

Models answer 683 real Chinese user queries across eight categories. A GPT-4 judge rates each answer from 1 to 10 against a reference.

Version 1.1 from June 2024 corrected reference answers, so v1.0 and v1.1 scores differ.

Released
November 2023
Kind
Overall chat quality
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Qwen3-235B-A22B #130 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
April 2025, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
September 2025
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Alignment has become a critical step for instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) to become helpful assistants. However, the effective evaluation of alignment for emerging Chinese LLMs is still largely unexplored. To fill in this gap, we introduce AlignBench, a comprehensive multi-dimensional benchmark for evaluating LLMs' alignment in Chinese. We design a human-in-the-loop data curation pipeline, containing eight main categories, 683 real-scenario rooted queries and corresponding human verified references. To ensure the correctness of references, each knowledge-intensive query is accompanied with evidences collected from reliable web sources (including URLs and quotations) by our annotators. For automatic evaluation, our benchmark employs a rule-calibrated multi-dimensional LLM-as-Judge approach with Chain-of-Thought to generate explanations and final ratings, ensuring high reliability and interpretability. All evaluation code, data, and LLM generations are available at https://github.com/THUDM/AlignBench. Since its release, AlignBench has been adopted by top (Chinese) LLMs for evaluating their alignment capabilities in Chinese, including ChatGLM, Qwen, DeepSeek, Yi, Baichuan, and Abab.

Abstract of AlignBench: Benchmarking Chinese Alignment of Large Language Models (arXiv:2311.18743, CC0)
15
Models scored in lab cards
6
Launch posts list it, from 3 labs
13
System cards report it, from 5 labs

Qwen3-235B-A22B leads with 8.94 among models released by August 2025

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

GPT-4 Turbo leads with 8.00 across all independent runs

Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.

Qwen3-235B-A22B leads with 8.94, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

The newest model with a score here came out in August 2025, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Qwen3-235B-A22B 8.94
  2. 2 Baichuan-M2-32B 8.77
  3. 3 Qwen3-32B 8.72
  4. 4 Qwen3-30B-A3B 8.70
  5. 5 Qwen3-14B 8.56
  6. 6 Qwen3-8B 8.46
  7. 7 Qwen3-4B 8.30
  8. 8 Qwen2-72B 8.27
  9. 9 Qwen2.5-72B 8.16
  10. 10 DeepSeek-V2.5 Sep 2024 8.04
  11. 11 DeepSeek-V2 (MoE-236B, May 2024) 7.91
  12. 12 GLM-4 7.88
  13. 13 Qwen3-1.7B 7.60
  14. 14 MiMo-7B-RL 6.90
  15. 15 DeepSeek LLM 67B 6.43

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen3-235B-A22B 8.94 Apr 2025 Lab model card
2 Baichuan-M2-32B 8.77 Sep 2025 Lab model card
3 Qwen3-32B 8.72 May 2025 Lab model card
4 Qwen3-30B-A3B 8.70 May 2025 Lab model card
5 Qwen3-14B 8.56 May 2025 Lab model card
6 Qwen3-8B 8.46 May 2025 Lab model card
7 Qwen3-4B 8.30 May 2025 Lab model card
8 Qwen2-72B 8.27 Jun 2024 Lab model card
9 Qwen2.5-72B 8.16 Sep 2024 Lab model card
10 DeepSeek-V2.5 Sep 2024 8.04 Sep 2024 Lab model card
11 DeepSeek-V2 (MoE-236B, May 2024) 7.91 May 2024 Lab model card
12 GLM-4 7.88 Jan 2024 Lab model card
13 Qwen3-1.7B 7.60 May 2025 Lab model card
14 MiMo-7B-RL 6.90 May 2025 Lab model card
15 DeepSeek LLM 67B 6.43 Jan 2024 Lab model card
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 8.00 v1.1 Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
2 Yi-Large 7.80 v1.1 May 2024 Official leaderboard
3 Claude 3 Opus 7.53 v1.1 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
4 Llama 3-70B 7.42 v1.1 Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
5 WizardLM-2 8x22B 7.34 v1.1 Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
6 Claude 3 Sonnet 6.71 v1.1 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
7 Claude 3 Haiku 6.38 v1.1 Mar 2024 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen3-235B-A22B 8.94 Apr 2025 Lab model card
2 Baichuan-M2-32B 8.77 Sep 2025 Lab model card
3 Qwen3-32B 8.72 May 2025 Lab model card
4 Qwen3-30B-A3B 8.70 May 2025 Lab model card
5 Qwen3-14B 8.56 May 2025 Lab model card
6 Qwen3-8B 8.46 May 2025 Lab model card
7 Qwen3-4B 8.30 May 2025 Lab model card
8 Qwen2-72B 8.27 Jun 2024 Lab model card
9 Qwen2.5-72B 8.16 Sep 2024 Lab model card
10 DeepSeek-V2.5 Sep 2024 8.04 Sep 2024 Lab model card
11 GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 8.00 v1.1 Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
12 DeepSeek-V2 (MoE-236B, May 2024) 7.91 May 2024 Lab model card
13 GLM-4 7.88 Jan 2024 Lab model card
14 Yi-Large 7.80 v1.1 May 2024 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen3-1.7B 7.60 May 2025 Lab model card
16 Claude 3 Opus 7.53 v1.1 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
17 Llama 3-70B 7.42 v1.1 Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
18 WizardLM-2 8x22B 7.34 v1.1 Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
19 MiMo-7B-RL 6.90 May 2025 Lab model card
20 Claude 3 Sonnet 6.71 v1.1 Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
21 DeepSeek LLM 67B 6.43 Jan 2024 Lab model card
22 Claude 3 Haiku 6.38 v1.1 Mar 2024 Official leaderboard

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 23 entries, 7 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

5 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in November 2023 2 models have held number one across all independent runs since its release in November 2023 5 models have held number one with claims included since its release in November 2023

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

Anthropic OpenAI DeepSeek Z.ai Qwen
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2024
Lab claims Not tested since Sep 2025

Sources: Official AlignBench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

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 Reported by the lab in its model card
6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 2024 2025 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 2024 2025

Sources: Official AlignBench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

No launch post has listed it since April 2025

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

Z.ai
DeepSeek
Qwen
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Apr 29, 2025 Qwen3-235B-A22B 8.94 AlignBench v1.1
Sep 19, 2024 Qwen2.5-72B 8.16 AlignBench v1.1
Sep 5, 2024 DeepSeek-V2.5 8.04 AlignBench
Jun 7, 2024 Qwen2-72B 8.27 AlignBench
May 7, 2024 DeepSeek-V2 (MoE-236B, May 2024) 7.91 Alignbench (总分)
Jan 16, 2024 GLM-4 7.88 AlignBench 2023 总分 (overall)

13 system cards report it, from 5 labs

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Sep 2, 2025 Baichuan-M2-32B technical report 8.77 AlignBench, 10-point scale (Table 1) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-8B technical report 8.46 AlignBench v1.1, thinking mode (Table 17). Non-thinking 8.38 (Table 18) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-4B technical report 8.3 AlignBench v1.1, thinking mode (Table 17). Non-thinking 8.10 (Table 18) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-32B technical report 8.72 AlignBench v1.1, thinking mode (Table 13). Non-thinking 8.58 (Table 14) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-30B-A3B technical report 8.7 AlignBench v1.1, thinking mode (Table 15). Non-thinking 8.55 (Table 16) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-235B-A22B technical report 8.94 AlignBench v1.1, thinking mode (Table 11). Non-thinking 8.91 (Table 12) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-14B technical report 8.56 AlignBench v1.1, thinking mode (Table 15). Non-thinking 8.52 (Table 16) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-1.7B technical report 7.6 AlignBench v1.1, thinking mode (Table 19). Non-thinking 7.20 (Table 20) Capabilities
May 12, 2025 MiMo-7B-RL technical report 6.9 Alignbench v1.1, GPT-4.1 judge (Table 6) Capabilities
Jul 15, 2024 Qwen2-72B technical report 8.27 AlignBench, Qwen2-72B-Instruct (Table 6) Capabilities
Jun 18, 2024 GLM-4 technical report 7.66 GLM-4 (0116), AlignBench-v1.1 Overall, 10-point scale (Table 4) Capabilities
May 7, 2024 DeepSeek-V2 (MoE-236B, May 2024) technical report 7.91 AlignBench overall rated by GPT-4-0613, reasoning 7.45, language 8.36, DeepSeek-V2 Chat (RL) (Table 5) Capabilities
Jan 5, 2024 DeepSeek LLM 67B technical report 6.43 AlignBench overall rated by gpt-4-0613, DeepSeek-67B-Chat, reasoning 5.75, language 7.11. DPO checkpoint 6.69 (Table 7) Capabilities

More in Instructions and chat

All 81 in Instructions and chat
  • IFEval In use Models answer about 500 prompts containing verifiable instructions such as word limits or required keywords. Code checks each instruction for strict and loose accuracy. Gemma 4 31B IT 98.9%
  • IFBench In use 58 new out-of-domain verifiable output constraints. Scored by programmatic constraint checks (strict or loose). Nemotron-Cascade 2 30B-A3B 82.9%
  • MultiChallenge In use Multi-turn conversations testing instruction retention, inference memory, versioned editing and self-coherence. Graded by LLM judge with rubrics. GPT-6.1 Sol 82%
  • Multi-IF In use Models follow verifiable instructions over three-turn conversations in eight languages, extending IFEval. Scored by instruction accuracy at each turn. LFM3-1.7B 89.1%
  • AdvancedIF In use Models respond to over 1,600 prompts with complex, multi-turn, and system-level instructions. A judge model checks each response against expert-written rubrics. MAI-Thinking-1 85%
  • IFStruct In use Models generate JSON or YAML that must follow a requested schema and phrasing constraints, without constrained decoding. A response passes only if every structural constraint holds. Gemma 4 31B IT 95.9%