BizFinBench
Models answer 6,781 Chinese finance queries drawn from real business scenarios. The queries cover numerical calculation, reasoning, information extraction, prediction recognition and knowledge questions, in nine categories. Some tasks are scored against answers and others by IteraJudge, the authors' LLM judging method.
The README now marks this first version as outdated and points to BizFinBench.v2 (ICML 2026), a larger bilingual set that the almanac also lacks. About 170 GitHub stars and 64 HF paper upvotes. The paper evaluates 25 models.
- Made by
- HiThink Research
- Released
- May 2025
- Kind
- Finance
- Level
- University
- Answers
- Short answer
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
Qwen3-32B #134 on the capability index
- Last model added
- April 2025
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Large language models excel in general tasks, yet assessing their reliability in logic-heavy, precision-critical domains like finance, law, and healthcare remains challenging. To address this, we introduce BizFinBench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs in real-world financial applications. BizFinBench consists of 6,781 well-annotated queries in Chinese, spanning five dimensions: numerical calculation, reasoning, information extraction, prediction recognition, and knowledge-based question answering, grouped into nine fine-grained categories. The benchmark includes both objective and subjective metrics. We also introduce IteraJudge, a novel LLM evaluation method that reduces bias when LLMs serve as evaluators in objective metrics. We benchmark 25 models, including both proprietary and open-source systems. Extensive experiments show that no model dominates across all tasks. Our evaluation reveals distinct capability patterns: (1) In Numerical Calculation, Claude-3.5-Sonnet (63.18) and DeepSeek-R1 (64.04) lead, while smaller models like Qwen2.5-VL-3B (15.92) lag significantly; (2) In Reasoning, proprietary models dominate (ChatGPT-o3: 83.58, Gemini-2.0-Flash: 81.15), with open-source models trailing by up to 19.49 points; (3) In Information Extraction, the performance spread is the largest, with DeepSeek-R1 scoring 71.46, while Qwen3-1.7B scores 11.23; (4) In Prediction Recognition, performance variance is minimal, with top models scoring between 39.16 and 50.00. We find that while current LLMs handle routine finance queries competently, they struggle with complex scenarios requiring cross-concept reasoning. BizFinBench offers a rigorous, business-aligned benchmark for future research. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/HiThink-Research/BizFinBench.
ChatGPT-o3 tops the leaderboard with 73.9%
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 best model we track is Qwen2.5-VL-32B, at 68.6%.
The newest model with a score here came out in April 2025, 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 16 more
- 73.9 ChatGPT-o3
- 73.0 DeepSeek-R1 (671B)
- 71.8 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified)
- 71.6 DeepSeek-V3 (671B)
- 71.3 ChatGPT-o4-mini
- 69.8 Gemini-2.0-Flash (snapshot unspecified)
- 68.6
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
- 68.3
Qwen3-32B
- 67.7
Qwen2.5-72B
- 67.5
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
- 67.0
Qwen3-14B
- 66.3
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B
- 65.8
QwQ-32B
- 65.6 Claude-3.5-Sonnet (snapshot unspecified)
- 61.2
Llama 4 Scout
- 59.9
Qwen3-4B
- 59.5
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B
- 56.7
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
- 56.4 Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
- 55.1 Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct
- 50.8
Qwen3-1.7B
- 49.5 Qwen2.5-VL-14B
- 49.0 Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
- 46.5 Xuanyuan3-70B
- 39.0
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
- 1 ChatGPT-o3 73.9%
- 2 DeepSeek-R1 (671B) 73%
- 3 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 71.8%
- 4 DeepSeek-V3 (671B) 71.6%
- 5 ChatGPT-o4-mini 71.3%
- 6 Gemini-2.0-Flash (snapshot unspecified) 69.8%
- 7
Qwen2.5-VL-32B 68.6%
- 8
Qwen3-32B 68.3%
- 9
Qwen2.5-72B 67.7%
- 10
Qwen2.5-VL-72B 67.5%
- 11
Qwen3-14B 67%
- 12
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 66.3%
- 13
QwQ-32B 65.8%
- 14 Claude-3.5-Sonnet (snapshot unspecified) 65.6%
- 15
Llama 4 Scout 61.2%
- 16
Qwen3-4B 59.9%
- 17
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B 59.5%
- 18
Qwen2.5-VL-7B 56.7%
- 19 Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct 56.4%
- 20 Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 55.1%
- 21
Qwen3-1.7B 50.8%
- 22 Qwen2.5-VL-14B 49.5%
- 23 Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct 49%
- 24 Xuanyuan3-70B 46.5%
- 25
Qwen2.5-VL-3B 39%
Source: Official BizFinBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ChatGPT-o3 | 73.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | DeepSeek-R1 (671B) | 73% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) | 71.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | DeepSeek-V3 (671B) | 71.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 5 | ChatGPT-o4-mini | 71.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | Gemini-2.0-Flash (snapshot unspecified) | 69.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | | 68.6% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 68.3% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 67.7% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 67.5% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 67% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 66.3% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 65.8% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | Claude-3.5-Sonnet (snapshot unspecified) | 65.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 15 | | 61.2% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 59.9% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 59.5% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | | 56.7% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct | 56.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 20 | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct | 55.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 21 | | 50.8% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | Qwen2.5-VL-14B | 49.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 23 | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct | 49% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 24 | Xuanyuan3-70B | 46.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 25 | | 39% | Jan 2025 | 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 BizFinBench 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 BizFinBench 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.
Source: Official leaderboards
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%