BiomniBench
Agents redo data analysis tasks from 100 published biomedical studies in a Harbor environment. An LLM judge grades the whole trajectory against rubrics written with the paper authors, so method quality counts, not just the final answer.
More than 100 experts spent over 1,000 hours on the rubrics. xbench lists it in its Profession-Aligned series. The board has 9 models.
- Made by
- Phylo, Humanlaya Data Lab and xbench (HongShan)
- Released
- May 2026
- Kind
- Genomics and life sciences
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.5 #20 on the capability index
- Last model added
- April 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
LLM agents now perform real biomedical research, but evaluating them rigorously is hard. Outcome-only benchmarks fail in two ways. First, a correct final answer can come from memorization, reward hacking, or wrong reasoning that produces the right number by chance. Second, valid alternative analyses are marked wrong simply because they differ from the reference. We introduce BiomniBench, a process-level evaluation framework that scores the full agent trajectory against expert-designed, task-specific rubrics. Our first release, BiomniBench-DA, contains 100 data-analysis tasks across 17 task types, 5 disease areas, and a general-biology category, each based on a paper from journals such as Nature, Cell, and Science and co-developed with an original author or a domain expert. Benchmarking frontier and open-weight models across four agent harnesses reveals three findings. Frontier and open-weight bases cluster within a few points of each other, with substantial headroom for all models. The agent harness shifts scores by more than the gap between successive model generations. Agents reliably ground claims in real sources yet consistently fall short on method selection, biological interpretation, and scientific reasoning. BiomniBench is the first process-level benchmark for LLM agents in biomedical research, providing the dimension-level diagnostics that outcome scoring cannot. huggingface.co/datasets/phylobio/BiomniBench-DA
Claude Opus 4.7 leads with 63.9 among models released by April 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. Every run is in the next chart. 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 April 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 15 more
- 1 Claude Opus 4.7 63.9
- 2 GPT-5.5 63.6
- 3 Claude Opus 4.6 63.2
- 4 Claude Sonnet 4.6 62.4
- 5 GLM-5.1 60.4
- 6 Qwen 3.6 59.5
- 7 Kimi K2.6 59.1
- 8 GPT-5.4 55.2
- 9
Gemini 3.1 Pro 44.3
Source: Official BiomniBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 63.9 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-5.5 | 63.6 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 63.2 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 62.4 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | GLM-5.1 | 60.4 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Qwen 3.6 | 59.5 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | Kimi K2.6 | 59.1 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | GPT-5.4 | 55.2 | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 44.3 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
The best score, 63.9, costs $0.87 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
Source: Official BiomniBench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.7 | 63.9 | $0.87 | |||
| GPT-5.5 | 63.6 | $1.98 | |||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | 63.2 | $1.79 | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 62.4 | $0.94 | |||
| GLM-5.1 | 60.4 | $0.58 | |||
| Kimi K2.6 | 59.1 | $0.85 | |||
| GPT-5.4 | 55.2 | $1.08 | |||
| | 44.3 | $0.37 |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official BiomniBench 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 BiomniBench 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 Biology and chemistry
- GeneBench Pro In use Agents analyze messy simulated genomics and biology datasets to estimate a decision-relevant quantity across 129 problems. Scored automatically against known answers. GPT-5.6 Sol 31.5%
- SUPERChem In use Models solve 500 expert-written chemistry reasoning problems, offered in multimodal and text-only forms. Expert solution paths also allow a reasoning path score.
Tencent Hy4 preview 66.4%
- LifeSciBench In use Models complete 750 expert-written life science research tasks, often with attached figures, tables, or sequence files. Graded against expert rubrics as score and pass rate. GPT-Rosalind-6 61.3%
- MedChemBench (OpenAI) In use Models answer chemistry questions from an OpenAI internal set, grouped with OpenAI's life science research evaluations. OpenAI has not published the task format. GPT-Rosalind-6 49.6%
- ProtocolQA Open-Ended In use Models correct errors in published lab protocols using open-ended questions adapted from LAB-Bench ProtocolQA. Scored as pass@1. GPT-6 Cyber 47.2%
- MolecularIQ In use Models answer questions about molecular graphs, such as counting, indexing and constrained generation, and a symbolic checker verifies each answer. gpt-oss-120b 47.5%