Benchmark Almanac

Bird-SQL

Qwen3-Coder-Next 63.6% leads since February 2026
GPT-5.5 72.5% leads since April 2026
GPT-5.5 72.5% leads since April 2026
Fading

Models convert natural language questions into SQL over 95 large real databases across 37 domains. Scored by execution accuracy.

The test set is hidden, so model cards usually report the dev set. In November 2025 the team released bird-sql-dev-1106, a cleaned dev split, and asks submissions to say which split they used. BIRD 2.0 is in development.

Released
May 2023
Kind
Data science and SQL
Level
University
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Code
Tasks
Public, plus a private test set
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.5 #20 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
August 2026, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
October 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Text-to-SQL parsing, which aims at converting natural language instructions into executable SQLs, has gained increasing attention in recent years. In particular, Codex and ChatGPT have shown impressive results in this task. However, most of the prevalent benchmarks, i.e., Spider, and WikiSQL, focus on database schema with few rows of database contents leaving the gap between academic study and real-world applications. To mitigate this gap, we present Bird, a big benchmark for large-scale database grounded in text-to-SQL tasks, containing 12,751 pairs of text-to-SQL data and 95 databases with a total size of 33.4 GB, spanning 37 professional domains. Our emphasis on database values highlights the new challenges of dirty database contents, external knowledge between NL questions and database contents, and SQL efficiency, particularly in the context of massive databases. To solve these problems, text-to-SQL models must feature database value comprehension in addition to semantic parsing. The experimental results demonstrate the significance of database values in generating accurate text-to-SQLs for big databases. Furthermore, even the most effective text-to-SQL models, i.e. ChatGPT, only achieves 40.08% in execution accuracy, which is still far from the human result of 92.96%, proving that challenges still stand. Besides, we also provide an efficiency analysis to offer insights into generating text-to-efficient-SQLs that are beneficial to industries. We believe that BIRD will contribute to advancing real-world applications of text-to-SQL research. The leaderboard and source code are available: https://bird-bench.github.io/.

Abstract of Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLs (arXiv:2305.03111, CC0)
13
Models scored in lab cards
7
Launch posts list it, from 3 labs
10
System cards report it, from 4 labs

Qwen3-Coder-Next leads with 63.6%

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-5.5 leads with 72.5% 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.

GPT-5.5 leads with 72.5%, 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.

  1. 1 Qwen3-Coder-Next 63.6%
  2. 2 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 59.6%
  3. 3 Cohere Command A 59.5%
  4. 4 Gemini 2.0 Pro 59.3%
  5. 5 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 58.7%
  6. 6 Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite 57.4%
  7. 7 Gemini 2.0 Flash Dec 2024 56.9%
  8. 8 Gemma 3 27B 54.4%
  9. 9 Gemma 3 12B 47.9%
  10. 10 Granite 4.2 30B 41.9%
  11. 11 Nemotron 3 Super 41.8%
  12. 12 Gemma 3 4B 36.3%
  13. 13 Gemma 3 1B 6.40%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen3-Coder-Next 63.6% Feb 2026 Lab model card
2 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 59.6% Oct 2026 Lab model card
3 Cohere Command A 59.5% Apr 2025 Lab model card
4 Gemini 2.0 Pro 59.3% Feb 2025 Lab model card
5 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 58.7% Feb 2025 Lab model card
6 Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite 57.4% Feb 2025 Lab model card
7 Gemini 2.0 Flash Dec 2024 56.9% Dec 2024 Lab model card
8 Gemma 3 27B 54.4% Mar 2025 Lab model card
9 Gemma 3 12B 47.9% Mar 2025 Lab model card
10 Granite 4.2 30B 41.9% Aug 2026 Lab model card
11 Nemotron 3 Super 41.8% Mar 2026 Lab model card
12 Gemma 3 4B 36.3% Mar 2025 Lab model card
13 Gemma 3 1B 6.40% Mar 2025 Lab model card
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-5.5 72.5% xhigh Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Opus 4.6 70.2% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 68.1% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Sonnet 4.5 66.8% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Cohere Command A 65.7% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
6 GLM-4.7 62.9% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 60.9% May 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Kimi K2 Thinking 59.9% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-4 Jun 2023 54.9% Jun 2023 Official leaderboard
10 Claude 2 49% Jul 2023 Official leaderboard
11 T5-3B 24.1% Oct 2019 Official leaderboard
12 T5-Large 20.9% Feb 2023 Official leaderboard
13 T5-Base 12.9% Feb 2023 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-5.5 72.5% xhigh Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Opus 4.6 70.2% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 68.1% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Sonnet 4.5 66.8% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Cohere Command A 65.7% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Qwen3-Coder-Next 63.6% Feb 2026 Lab model card
7 GLM-4.7 62.9% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
8 DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 60.9% May 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Kimi K2 Thinking 59.9% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 59.6% Oct 2026 Lab model card
11 Gemini 2.0 Pro 59.3% Feb 2025 Lab model card
12 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 58.7% Feb 2025 Lab model card
13 Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite 57.4% Feb 2025 Lab model card
14 Gemini 2.0 Flash Dec 2024 56.9% Dec 2024 Lab model card
15 GPT-4 Jun 2023 54.9% Jun 2023 Official leaderboard
16 Gemma 3 27B 54.4% Mar 2025 Lab model card
17 Claude 2 49% Jul 2023 Official leaderboard
18 Gemma 3 12B 47.9% Mar 2025 Lab model card
19 Granite 4.2 30B 41.9% Aug 2026 Lab model card
20 Nemotron 3 Super 41.8% Mar 2026 Lab model card
21 Gemma 3 4B 36.3% Mar 2025 Lab model card
22 T5-3B 24.1% Oct 2019 Official leaderboard
23 T5-Large 20.9% Feb 2023 Official leaderboard
24 T5-Base 12.9% Feb 2023 Official leaderboard
25 Gemma 3 1B 6.40% Mar 2025 Lab model card

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 122 entries, 13 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Scores at each effort level

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
T5-3B
without ora…
24.1%
T5-Large
without ora…
20.9%
T5-Base
without ora…
12.9%

Source: Official Bird-SQL leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-5.5 xhigh 72.5%
Claude Opus 4.6 70.2%
Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 68.1%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 66.8%
Cohere Command A 65.7%
GLM-4.7 62.9%
DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 60.9%
Kimi K2 Thinking 59.9%
GPT-4 Jun 2023 54.9%
Claude 2 49%
T5-3B 24.1%
T5-Large 20.9%
T5-Base 12.9%
T5-3B without oracle knowledge 11.2%
T5-Large without oracle knowledge 10.4%
T5-Base without oracle knowledge 7.06%

4 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in May 2023 6 models have held number one across all independent runs since its release in May 2023 8 models have held number one with claims included since its release in May 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.

Google DeepMind OpenAI Cohere Qwen Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Apr 2026
GPT-5.5 72.5%
Lab claims 4 leaders

Sources: Official Bird-SQL 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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.5 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B Gemini 2.0 Pro GPT-4 T5-3B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2020 2022 2024 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.5 Cohere Command A

Sources: Official Bird-SQL leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Labs headline it less often now, last in August 2026

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.

Google DeepMind
NVIDIA
IBM
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Aug 25, 2026 Granite 4.2 30B 41.9 BirdBench
Mar 11, 2026 Nemotron 3 Super 41.8 BIRD Bench
Mar 12, 2025 Gemma 3 27B 54.4 Bird-SQL (dev) (IT)
Feb 5, 2025 Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite 57.4 Bird-SQL (Dev)
Feb 5, 2025 Gemini 2.0 Flash 58.7 Bird-SQL (Dev)
Feb 5, 2025 Gemini 2.0 Pro 59.3 Bird-SQL (Dev)
Dec 11, 2024 Gemini 2.0 Flash 56.9 Bird-SQL (Dev)

10 system cards report it, from 4 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
Oct 15, 2026 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL technical report 59.6 BIRD (text2sql, no tools), BF16 acc. (Table 23) Capabilities
Mar 11, 2026 Nemotron 3 Super technical report 41.8 BIRD Bench, dev set, execution accuracy (Table 5) Capabilities
Feb 28, 2026 Qwen3-Coder-Next technical report 63.6 BIRD-SQL (Table 7) Capabilities
Apr 15, 2025 Gemini 2.0 Flash model card 58.7 Bird-SQL (Dev) (Table, p.3, column Gemini 2.0 Flash (GA)) Capabilities
Apr 10, 2025 Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite model card 57.4 Bird-SQL (Dev) (Table, p.3) Capabilities
Apr 1, 2025 Cohere Command A technical report 59.5 Bird Dev execution accuracy (Table 14, Table 1) Capabilities
Mar 25, 2025 Gemma 3 4B technical report 36.3 Bird-SQL (dev), IT, zero-shot (Table 6) Capabilities
Mar 25, 2025 Gemma 3 27B technical report 54.4 Bird-SQL (dev), IT, zero-shot (Table 6) Capabilities
Mar 25, 2025 Gemma 3 1B technical report 6.4 Bird-SQL (dev), IT, zero-shot (Table 6) Capabilities
Mar 25, 2025 Gemma 3 12B technical report 47.9 Bird-SQL (dev), IT, zero-shot (Table 6) Capabilities

One lab claim next to the leaderboard

Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
Cohere Command A 59.5% Bird Dev execution accuracy (Table 14, Table 1) 65.7% Leaderboard −6.2 pts

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