Benchmark Almanac

CHI-Bench

Claude Opus 5 54.7% leads since July 2026
Not in model cards

Agents run long healthcare operations workflows such as prior authorization through 87 MCP tools over 20 simulated apps. Tasks need policy lookups, role handoffs and multi-turn dialogs.

55 upvotes on Hugging Face papers. Covers provider, payer and care management domains.

Made by
Actava AI
Released
May 2026
Kind
Medicine
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
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

End-to-end automation of realistic healthcare operations stresses three capabilities underrepresented in current benchmarks: policy density, decisions must be grounded in a large library of medical, insurance, and operational rules; Multi-role composition: a single task requires the agent to play multiple roles with handoffs; and multilateral interaction: intermediate workflow steps are multi-turn dialogs, such as peer-to-peer review and patient outreach. We introduce χ-Bench, a benchmark of long-horizon healthcare workflows across three domains: provider prior authorization, payer utilization management, and care management. Each task hands the agent a clinical case in a high-fidelity simulator of 20 healthcare apps exposed via 87 MCP tools, which it must drive to a terminal status through tool calls and writing the role's artifacts, guided by a 1,290+ document managed-care operations handbook skill. Across 30 agent harness/models configurations, the best agent resolves only 28.0% of tasks, no agent clears 20% on strict pass^3, and executing all tasks in a single session slumps the performance to 3.8%. These results raise the hypothesis that similar gaps are likely to surface in other policy-dense, role-composed, irreversible enterprise domains.

Abstract of CHI-Bench: Can AI Agents Automate End-to-End, Long-Horizon, Policy-Rich Healthcare Workflows? (arXiv:2605.16679, CC0)
26
Entries on its own leaderboard, 23 models we track

Claude Opus 5 leads with 54.7% 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. 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 July 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 5 54.7%
  2. 2 Claude Opus 4.8 37.3%
  3. 3 Claude Opus 4.6 28%
  4. 4 Claude Sonnet 4.6 26.2%
  5. 5 GPT-5.6 Sol 25.3%
  6. 6 Kimi K3 25.3%
  7. 7 Claude Opus 4.7 24.4%
  8. 8 Claude Fable 5 24%
  9. 9 MedGuard 22.7%
  10. 10 GPT-5.5 20.9%
  11. 11 Claude Sonnet 5 20%
  12. 12 GLM-5.1 18.7%
  13. 13 GLM-5.2 18.7%
  14. 14 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) 16.4%
  15. 15 GPT-5.4 16%
  16. 16 Kimi K2.6 15.6%
  17. 17 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 14.2%
  18. 18 GPT-5.6 Luna 13.3%
  19. 19 GPT-5.6 Terra 13.3%
  20. 20 Gemini 3 Flash 12.5%
  21. 21 GPT-5.4 Mini 8.40%
  22. 22 TML Inkling 256K 8.00%
  23. 23 Gemini 3.1 Pro 7.10%
  24. 24 Claude Haiku 4.5 6.20%
  25. 25 Grok 4.3 5.80%
  26. 26 Nemotron 3 Ultra 256K 0%

Source: Official CHI-Bench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 5 54.7% erius by Michael Johnson (MJ) Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Opus 4.8 37.3% erius by Michael Johnson (MJ) May 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Opus 4.6 28% claude-code Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Sonnet 4.6 26.2% claude-code Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-5.6 Sol 25.3% codex Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Kimi K3 25.3% openai-agents Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Claude Opus 4.7 24.4% claude-code Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Fable 5 24% claude-code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
9 MedGuard 22.7% hermes by cuilinke Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-5.5 20.9% codex Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Sonnet 5 20% claude-code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
12 GLM-5.1 18.7% openai-agents Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
13 GLM-5.2 18.7% openai-agents Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) 16.4% hermes Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
15 GPT-5.4 16% codex Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Kimi K2.6 15.6% hermes Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
17 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 14.2% openai-agents Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
18 GPT-5.6 Luna 13.3% codex Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
19 GPT-5.6 Terra 13.3% codex Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
20 Gemini 3 Flash 12.5% gemini-cli Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
21 GPT-5.4 Mini 8.40% codex Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
22 TML Inkling 256K 8.00% openai-agents Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
23 Gemini 3.1 Pro 7.10% gemini-cli Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
24 Claude Haiku 4.5 6.20% claude-code Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
25 Grok 4.3 5.80% openai-agents Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
26 Nemotron 3 Ultra 256K 0% openai-agents Jul 2026 Official leaderboard

Cost versus pass@1

The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.

0% 10% 20% 30% $0.1$1$10$100 Average cost per trial ($), log scale, lower is better Pass@1 Gemini 3 Flash: Pass@1 12.5%, average cost per trial $0.33 Gemini 3.1 Pro: Pass@1 7.1%, average cost per trial $2.11 GPT-5.4: Pass@1 16%, average cost per trial $1.3 GPT-5.4 Mini: Pass@1 8.4%, average cost per trial $0.27 GLM-5.1: Pass@1 18.7%, average cost per trial $1.04 GLM-5.1: Pass@1 16.9%, average cost per trial $0.96 GLM-5.1: Pass@1 11.1%, average cost per trial $0.26 Claude Opus 4.7: Pass@1 24.4%, average cost per trial $9.91 Claude Opus 4.7: Pass@1 17.3%, average cost per trial $11.5 Kimi K2.6: Pass@1 15.6%, average cost per trial $1.07 Kimi K2.6: Pass@1 15.1%, average cost per trial $0.43 Kimi K2.6: Pass@1 10.2%, average cost per trial $0.91 Kimi K2.6: Pass@1 3.1%, average cost per trial $0.55 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview): Pass@1 16.4%, average cost per trial $4.12 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview): Pass@1 15.6%, average cost per trial $0.58 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview): Pass@1 9.3%, average cost per trial $0.57 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview): Pass@1 4.9%, average cost per trial $2.8 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Pass@1 13.8%, average cost per trial $2.19 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Pass@1 11.1%, average cost per trial $0.53 Grok 4.3: Pass@1 5.8%, average cost per trial $1.54 Grok 4.3: Pass@1 4.4%, average cost per trial $1.05 Grok 4.3: Pass@1 2.2%, average cost per trial $1.43 Grok 4.3: Pass@1 0.4%, average cost per trial $2.66 Claude Haiku 4.5: Pass@1 6.2%, average cost per trial $0.16 Claude Opus 4.6: Pass@1 28%, average cost per trial $6.47 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Pass@1 26.2%, average cost per trial $1.3 GLM-5.1: Pass@1 18.7%, average cost per trial $0.27 GPT-5.5: Pass@1 20.9%, average cost per trial $1.29 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Pass@1 14.2%, average cost per trial $0.25 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Pass@1 10.7%, average cost per trial $0.21 Claude Opus 4.6Claude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.5GLM-5.1DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek-V4-ProClaude Haiku 4.5 0% 10% 20% 30% $0.1$1$10$100 Average cost per trial ($), log scale, lower is better Pass@1 Gemini 3 Flash: Pass@1 12.5%, average cost per trial $0.33 Gemini 3.1 Pro: Pass@1 7.1%, average cost per trial $2.11 GPT-5.4: Pass@1 16%, average cost per trial $1.3 GPT-5.4 Mini: Pass@1 8.4%, average cost per trial $0.27 GLM-5.1: Pass@1 18.7%, average cost per trial $1.04 GLM-5.1: Pass@1 16.9%, average cost per trial $0.96 GLM-5.1: Pass@1 11.1%, average cost per trial $0.26 Claude Opus 4.7: Pass@1 24.4%, average cost per trial $9.91 Claude Opus 4.7: Pass@1 17.3%, average cost per trial $11.5 Kimi K2.6: Pass@1 15.6%, average cost per trial $1.07 Kimi K2.6: Pass@1 15.1%, average cost per trial $0.43 Kimi K2.6: Pass@1 10.2%, average cost per trial $0.91 Kimi K2.6: Pass@1 3.1%, average cost per trial $0.55 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview): Pass@1 16.4%, average cost per trial $4.12 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview): Pass@1 15.6%, average cost per trial $0.58 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview): Pass@1 9.3%, average cost per trial $0.57 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview): Pass@1 4.9%, average cost per trial $2.8 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Pass@1 13.8%, average cost per trial $2.19 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Pass@1 11.1%, average cost per trial $0.53 Grok 4.3: Pass@1 5.8%, average cost per trial $1.54 Grok 4.3: Pass@1 4.4%, average cost per trial $1.05 Grok 4.3: Pass@1 2.2%, average cost per trial $1.43 Grok 4.3: Pass@1 0.4%, average cost per trial $2.66 Claude Haiku 4.5: Pass@1 6.2%, average cost per trial $0.16 Claude Opus 4.6: Pass@1 28%, average cost per trial $6.47 Claude Sonnet 4.6: Pass@1 26.2%, average cost per trial $1.3 GLM-5.1: Pass@1 18.7%, average cost per trial $0.27 GPT-5.5: Pass@1 20.9%, average cost per trial $1.29 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Pass@1 14.2%, average cost per trial $0.25 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Pass@1 10.7%, average cost per trial $0.21 Claude Opus 4.6Claude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.5GLM-5.1DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek-V4-ProClaude Haiku 4.5
ModelSettingPass@1Average cost per trial
Claude Opus 4.6 claude-code 28% $6.47
Claude Sonnet 4.6 claude-code 26.2% $1.3
Claude Opus 4.7 claude-code 24.4% $9.91
GPT-5.5 codex 20.9% $1.29
GLM-5.1 openai-agents 18.7% $0.27
GLM-5.1 hermes 18.7% $1.04
Claude Opus 4.7 openclaw 17.3% $11.48
GLM-5.1 openclaw 16.9% $0.96
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) hermes 16.4% $4.12
GPT-5.4 codex 16% $1.3
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) openai-agents 15.6% $0.58
Kimi K2.6 hermes 15.6% $1.07
Kimi K2.6 openai-agents 15.1% $0.43
DeepSeek-V4-Pro openai-agents 14.2% $0.25
DeepSeek-V4-Pro hermes 13.8% $2.19
Gemini 3 Flash gemini-cli 12.5% $0.33
GLM-5.1 deepagents 11.1% $0.26
DeepSeek-V4-Pro openclaw 11.1% $0.53
DeepSeek-V4-Pro deepagents 10.7% $0.21
Kimi K2.6 openclaw 10.2% $0.91
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) deepagents 9.3% $0.57
GPT-5.4 Mini codex 8.4% $0.27
Gemini 3.1 Pro gemini-cli 7.1% $2.11
Claude Haiku 4.5 claude-code 6.2% $0.16
Grok 4.3 openai-agents 5.8% $1.54
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) openclaw 4.9% $2.8
Grok 4.3 hermes 4.4% $1.05
Kimi K2.6 deepagents 3.1% $0.55
Grok 4.3 deepagents 2.2% $1.43
Grok 4.3 openclaw 0.4% $2.66

Of runs with a cost, the best scores 28% for $6.47 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. Claude Sonnet 4.6 comes within 1.8 points of the best for $1.30 a task, 5 times cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

Anthropic Z.ai OpenAI DeepSeek Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 10% 20% 30% $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.6 GPT-5.5 GLM-5.1 DeepSeek-V4-Pro DeepSeek-V4-Pro Claude Haiku 4.5 0% 10% 20% 30% $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.6

Source: Official CHI-Bench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 5 erius by Michael Johnson (MJ) 54.7%
Claude Opus 4.8 erius by Michael Johnson (MJ) 37.3%
Claude Opus 5 claude-code 37.3%
Claude Opus 4.8 claude-code 33.3%
Claude Opus 4.6 claude-code 28% $6.47
Claude Sonnet 4.6 claude-code 26.2% $1.30
GPT-5.6 Sol codex 25.3%
Kimi K3 openai-agents 25.3%
Claude Opus 4.7 claude-code 24.4% $9.91
Claude Fable 5 claude-code 24%
GPT-5.5 codex 20.9% $1.29
Claude Sonnet 5 claude-code 20%
GLM-5.1 openai-agents 18.7% $0.27
GLM-5.1 hermes 18.7% $1.04
GLM-5.2 openai-agents 18.7%
Claude Opus 4.7 openclaw 17.3% $11
GLM-5.1 openclaw 16.9% $0.96
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) hermes 16.4% $4.12
GPT-5.4 codex 16% $1.30
Kimi K2.6 hermes 15.6% $1.07
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) openai-agents 15.6% $0.58
Kimi K2.6 openai-agents 15.1% $0.43
DeepSeek-V4-Pro openai-agents 14.2% $0.25
DeepSeek-V4-Pro hermes 13.8% $2.19
GPT-5.6 Luna codex 13.3%
GPT-5.6 Terra codex 13.3%
Gemini 3 Flash gemini-cli 12.5% $0.33
GLM-5.1 deepagents 11.1% $0.26
DeepSeek-V4-Pro openclaw 11.1% $0.53
DeepSeek-V4-Pro deepagents 10.7% $0.21
Kimi K2.6 openclaw 10.2% $0.91
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) deepagents 9.30% $0.57
GPT-5.4 Mini codex 8.40% $0.27
Gemini 3.1 Pro gemini-cli 7.10% $2.11
Claude Haiku 4.5 claude-code 6.20% $0.16
Grok 4.3 openai-agents 5.80% $1.54
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) openclaw 4.90% $2.80
Grok 4.3 hermes 4.40% $1.05
Kimi K2.6 deepagents 3.10% $0.55
Grok 4.3 deepagents 2.20% $1.43
Grok 4.3 openclaw 0.40% $2.66

3 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2026

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

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jul 2026

Source: Official CHI-Bench 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 5 Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Opus 4.6 Gemini 3 Flash Claude Haiku 4.5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5 Claude Opus 4.8

Source: Official CHI-Bench 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 Law, finance and medicine

All 179 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%