Benchmark Almanac

AlphaEval

Claude Opus 4.6 64.4% leads since April 2026
Not in model cards

Agent products such as Claude Code and Codex do 94 production tasks from 7 companies across 6 O*NET domains. Grading mixes formal checks, UI tests and rubrics.

Covered in Latent Space AINews on April 17th, 2026.

Released
April 2026
Kind
Running a business
Level
Expert
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Agent task
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 4.6 #37 on the capability index
Last model added
February 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

The rapid deployment of AI agents in commercial settings has outpaced the development of evaluation methodologies that reflect production realities. Existing benchmarks measure agent capabilities through retrospectively curated tasks with well-specified requirements and deterministic metrics – conditions that diverge fundamentally from production environments where requirements contain implicit constraints, inputs are heterogeneous multi-modal documents with information fragmented across sources, tasks demand undeclared domain expertise, outputs are long-horizon professional deliverables, and success is judged by domain experts whose standards evolve over time. We present AlphaEval, a production-grounded benchmark of 94 tasks sourced from seven companies deploying AI agents in their core business, spanning six O*NET (Occupational Information Network) domains. Unlike model-centric benchmarks, AlphaEval evaluates complete agent products – Claude Code, Codex, etc. – as commercial systems, capturing performance variations invisible to model-level evaluation. Our evaluation framework covers multiple paradigms (LLM-as-a-Judge, reference-driven metrics, formal verification, rubric-based assessment, automated UI testing, etc.), with individual domains composing multiple paradigms. Beyond the benchmark itself, we contribute a requirement-to-benchmark construction framework – a systematic methodology that transforms authentic production requirements into executable evaluation tasks in minimal time. This framework standardizes the entire pipeline from requirement to evaluation, providing a reproducible, modular process that any organization can adopt to construct production-grounded benchmarks for their own domains.

Abstract of AlphaEval: Evaluating Agents in Production (arXiv:2604.12162, CC0)
6
Entries on its own leaderboard, 5 models we track

Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 64.4% among models released by February 2026

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

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 Claude Opus 4.6 Average of 94 tasks 64.4%
  2. 2 GPT-5.2 Average of 94 tasks 54.9%
  3. 3 Gemini 3 Pro [snapshot unspecified] Average of 94 tasks 50.8%
  4. 4 GLM-5 Average of 94 tasks 49.9%
  5. 5 Kimi K2.5 Average of 94 tasks 43.9%
  6. 6 MiniMax-M2.5 Average of 94 tasks 40.9%

Source: Official AlphaEval leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.6 64.4% Average of 94 tasks, Claude Code Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.2 54.9% Average of 94 tasks, GitHub Copilot Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 3 Pro [snapshot unspecified] 50.8% Average of 94 tasks, Claude Code Official leaderboard
4 GLM-5 49.9% Average of 94 tasks, Codex CLI Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Kimi K2.5 43.9% Average of 94 tasks, Claude Code Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
6 MiniMax-M2.5 40.9% Average of 94 tasks, Claude Code Feb 2026 Official leaderboard

Number one over time

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

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Apr 2026

Source: Official AlphaEval 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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.6 GPT-5.2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.6 GPT-5.2

Source: Official AlphaEval 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 Economic work

All 97 in Economic work
  • JobBench In use 130 tasks from 35 occupations workers most want delegated. Agent works through messy reference files, graded by fact-anchored binary rubrics. GLM-5.3 61.4%
  • GDPval In use Real work tasks from 44 occupations with reference files. Experts blindly compare model deliverables with expert work. Metric is win-or-tie rate. Seed2.1 Pro 87.9%
  • GDPval-AA v2.1 In use Agents with shell and web access complete 220 GDPval gold tasks from 44 occupations. Blind pairwise comparisons give Elo ratings. Claude Opus 5.5 1,846
  • AA-Briefcase v1.1 In use Version 1.1 of Artificial Analysis's multi-hour office work evaluation, with Elo ratings fitted by Crowd-BT. Claude Opus 5.5 1,822
  • CoWorkBench In use Agent completes long-horizon productivity tasks across computer science, finance, law and medicine. Qwen in-house scoring (method unpublished). Claude Fable 5 75.9%
  • OfficeQA In use Grounded reasoning over a large corpus of U.S. Treasury Bulletin documents: locate tables and compute precise numeric answers. Claude Opus 4.7 86.3%