BankerToolBench v1.1
Agents complete 100 junior investment banker tasks and produce Excel, PowerPoint and Word deliverables. A task passes only if every critical rubric criterion passes.
Same 100 tasks as v1.0 with renamed MCP tools, a new system prompt, and rubrics made more objective after expert review. Handshake shows v1 and v1.1 on separate boards. The v1.1 board reports pass@1.
- Made by
- Handshake AI Research
- Released
- October 2026
- Kind
- Finance
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- Claude Opus 5 #10 on the capability index
- Last model added
- July 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Existing AI benchmarks lack the fidelity to assess economically meaningful progress on professional workflows. To evaluate frontier AI agents in a high-value, labor-intensive profession, we introduce BankerToolBench (BTB): an open-source benchmark of end-to-end analytical workflows routinely performed by junior investment bankers. To develop an ecologically valid benchmark grounded in representative work environments, we collaborated with 502 investment bankers from leading firms. BTB requires agents to execute senior banker requests by navigating data rooms, using industry tools (market data platform, SEC filings database), and generating multi-file deliverables–including Excel financial models, PowerPoint pitch decks, and PDF/Word reports. Completing a BTB task takes bankers up to 21 hours, underscoring the economic stakes of successfully delegating this work to AI. BTB enables automated evaluation of any LLM or agent, scoring deliverables against 100+ rubric criteria defined by veteran investment bankers to capture stakeholder utility. Testing 9 frontier models, we find that even the best-performing model (GPT-5.4) fails nearly half of the rubric criteria and bankers rate 0% of its outputs as client-ready. Our failure analysis reveals key obstacles (such as breakdowns in cross-artifact consistency) and improvement directions for agentic AI in high-stakes professional workflows.
Claude Opus 5 leads with 32.6% among models released by July 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 July 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 13 more
- 1 Claude Opus 5 32.6%
- 2 GPT-5.6 Sol 29%
- 3 Claude Opus 4.8 20.7%
- 4 GPT-5.5 15%
- 5 GPT-5.4 13.7%
- 6
Gemini 3.1 Pro 13%
- 7 GLM-5.2 12.4%
- 8 Claude Opus 4.6 7.40%
- 9 GLM-5 4.70%
- 10
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 2.70%
- 11 Gemini 2.5 Pro (snapshot unspecified) 1.00%
Source: Official BankerToolBench v1.1 leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5 | 32.6% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 29% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 20.7% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | GPT-5.5 | 15% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | GPT-5.4 | 13.7% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 13% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | GLM-5.2 | 12.4% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 7.40% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | GLM-5 | 4.70% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 2.70% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | Gemini 2.5 Pro (snapshot unspecified) | 1.00% | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official BankerToolBench v1.1 leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official BankerToolBench v1.1 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.
Versions
We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.
Sources: Official leaderboards and labs’ model cards
More in Law, finance and medicine
- MedXpertQA-MM In use Models answer expert-level medical exam questions that combine images with clinical records and test results. Scoring is accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 80.4%
- HealthBench Professional In use 525 physician-authored tasks from real clinician chats (care consult, documentation, research) with physician-adjudicated rubrics. Claude Sonnet 5.5 69.2%
- HealthBench In use 5,000 realistic health conversations graded against physician-written rubrics. A length-adjusted variant penalizes verbosity. GPT-5 67.2%
- FinSearchComp In use Agents search the web to fetch live financial data, look up history, and run multi-step investigations, across 635 expert-written questions. Scored by answer accuracy.
Ling-3.1-flash 81.7%
- KBL In use Models answer Korean legal knowledge and reasoning tasks and Korean bar exam questions. It has 7 knowledge tasks, 4 reasoning tasks and 2,510 bar exam items.
Solar Pro 4 77.5%
- KorMedMCQA In use Models answer 7,469 multiple-choice questions from Korean licensing exams for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists, held from 2012 to 2024.
Solar Pro 4 93.2%