Claw-Eval Pass^3
Agents complete 300 human-verified tasks in service orchestration, multimodal interaction, and professional dialogue. Pass^3 credits a task only if all three trials pass.
Pass^3 is the strict metric of Claw-Eval. Average score and Pass@k are also reported.
- Made by
- Claw-Eval team
- Released
- April 2026
- Kind
- General assistants
- Level
- University
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.4 #27 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- November 2026
- Last model added
- November 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents for multi-step workflows in real-world software environments. However, existing agent benchmarks are limited by trajectory-opaque grading, underspecified safety and robustness evaluation, and narrow coverage of modalities and interaction paradigms. We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing these gaps with 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups: general service orchestration, multimodal perception and interaction, and multi-turn professional dialogue. To enable trajectory-aware grading, each run is recorded through three independent evidence channels: execution traces, audit logs, and environment snapshots, yielding 2,159 fine-grained rubric items. The scoring protocol evaluates Completion, Safety, and Robustness, with Average Score, Pass@k, and Pass^k across three trials to distinguish genuine capability from lucky outcomes. Experiments on 14 frontier models show that: (1) Trajectory-opaque evaluation is systematically unreliable, missing 44% of safety violations and 13% of robustness failures detected by our framework. (2) Capability does not imply consistency, with Pass@3 remaining stable under error injection while Pass^3 dropping by up to 24 percentage points. (3) Agent capability is strongly multi-dimensional, with model rankings varying across task groups and metrics, indicating that our heterogeneous evaluation coverage is essential. Claw-Eval highlights directions for developing agents that are not only capable but reliably deployable.
LongCat-2.5 leads with 78.3%
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.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 70.4% 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.
LongCat-2.5 leads with 78.3%, 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
LongCat-2.5 78.3%
- 2
Tencent Hy3 68.5%
- 3
Step 3.7 Flash 67.1%
- 4
Ring-2.6-1T 63.8%
- 5 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 63.8%
- 6 Kimi K2.6 62.3%
- 7 MiMo-V2.5 62.3%
- 8
Qwen3.6 27B 60.6%
- 9
Qwen 3.6 Plus 58.7%
- 10
Tencent Hy3 preview 55%
- 11 LFM3-1.7B 51.4%
- 12
Ling-2.6-1T 51%
- 13
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 50%
Source: Labs’ model cards
- 70.4 Claude Opus 4.6
- 68.3
Step 3.7 Flash
- 67.8 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 63.8
Muse Spark
- 63.8 MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 62.3 GLM-5.1
- 62.3 Kimi K2.6
- 62.3 MiMo-V2.5
- 60.3 GPT-5.4
- 59.8
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 58.8
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 58.8
SenseNova 6.7 Flash-Lite
- 57.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 57.8 MiMo-V2-Pro
- 57.8
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
- 56.8
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
- 55.8 GLM-5-Turbo
- 53.8 GLM-5V-Turbo
- 52.3 Kimi K2.5
- 49.2
Gemini 3 Flash
- 48.7
MiniMax-M2.7
- 45.2 MiMo-V2-Omni
- 40.2
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 5.50
Nemotron 3 Super
- 1 Claude Opus 4.6 70.4%
- 2
Step 3.7 Flash 68.3%
- 3 Claude Sonnet 4.6 67.8%
- 4
Muse Spark 63.8%
- 5 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 63.8%
- 6 GLM-5.1 62.3%
- 7 Kimi K2.6 62.3%
- 8 MiMo-V2.5 62.3%
- 9 GPT-5.4 60.3%
- 10
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 59.8%
- 11
Qwen 3.6 Plus 58.8%
- 12
SenseNova 6.7 Flash-Lite 58.8%
- 13
Gemini 3.1 Pro 57.8%
- 14 MiMo-V2-Pro 57.8%
- 15
DeepSeek-V4-Flash 57.8%
- 16
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 56.8%
- 17 GLM-5-Turbo 55.8%
- 18 GLM-5V-Turbo 53.8%
- 19 Kimi K2.5 52.3%
- 20
Gemini 3 Flash 49.2%
- 21
MiniMax-M2.7 48.7%
- 22 MiMo-V2-Omni 45.2%
- 23
DeepSeek-V3.2 40.2%
- 24
Nemotron 3 Super 5.50%
Source: Official Claw-Eval Pass^3 leaderboard
- 78.3
LongCat-2.5
- 70.4 Claude Opus 4.6
- 68.5
Tencent Hy3
- 68.3
Step 3.7 Flash
- 67.8 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 63.8
Ring-2.6-1T
- 63.8
Muse Spark
- 63.8 MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 62.3 GLM-5.1
- 62.3 Kimi K2.6
- 62.3 MiMo-V2.5
- 60.6
Qwen3.6 27B
- 60.3 GPT-5.4
- 59.8
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 58.8
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 58.8
SenseNova 6.7 Flash-Lite
- 57.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 57.8 MiMo-V2-Pro
- 57.8
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
- 56.8
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
- 55.8 GLM-5-Turbo
- 55.0
Tencent Hy3 preview
- 53.8 GLM-5V-Turbo
- 52.3 Kimi K2.5
- 51.4 LFM3-1.7B
- 51.0
Ling-2.6-1T
- 50.0
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B
- 49.2
Gemini 3 Flash
- 48.7
MiniMax-M2.7
- 45.2 MiMo-V2-Omni
- 40.2
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 5.50
Nemotron 3 Super
- 1
LongCat-2.5 78.3%
- 2 Claude Opus 4.6 70.4%
- 3
Tencent Hy3 68.5%
- 4
Step 3.7 Flash 68.3%
- 5 Claude Sonnet 4.6 67.8%
- 6
Ring-2.6-1T 63.8%
- 7
Muse Spark 63.8%
- 8 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 63.8%
- 9 GLM-5.1 62.3%
- 10 Kimi K2.6 62.3%
- 11 MiMo-V2.5 62.3%
- 12
Qwen3.6 27B 60.6%
- 13 GPT-5.4 60.3%
- 14
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 59.8%
- 15
Qwen 3.6 Plus 58.8%
- 16
SenseNova 6.7 Flash-Lite 58.8%
- 17
Gemini 3.1 Pro 57.8%
- 18 MiMo-V2-Pro 57.8%
- 19
DeepSeek-V4-Flash 57.8%
- 20
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 56.8%
- 21 GLM-5-Turbo 55.8%
- 22
Tencent Hy3 preview 55%
- 23 GLM-5V-Turbo 53.8%
- 24 Kimi K2.5 52.3%
- 25 LFM3-1.7B 51.4%
- 26
Ling-2.6-1T 51%
- 27
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 50%
- 28
Gemini 3 Flash 49.2%
- 29
MiniMax-M2.7 48.7%
- 30 MiMo-V2-Omni 45.2%
- 31
DeepSeek-V3.2 40.2%
- 32
Nemotron 3 Super 5.50%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official Claw-Eval Pass^3 leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 78.3% | Nov 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 68.5% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 67.1% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 63.8% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 63.8% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | Kimi K2.6 | 62.3% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | MiMo-V2.5 | 62.3% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | | 60.6% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | | 58.7% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 10 | | 55% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 11 | LFM3-1.7B | 51.4% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 12 | | 51% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 13 | | 50% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 70.4% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | | 68.3% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 67.8% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 63.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 63.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | GLM-5.1 | 62.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | Kimi K2.6 | 62.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | MiMo-V2.5 | 62.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | GPT-5.4 | 60.3% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 59.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 58.8% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 58.8% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 57.8% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | MiMo-V2-Pro | 57.8% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 57.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 56.8% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | GLM-5-Turbo | 55.8% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | GLM-5V-Turbo | 53.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | Kimi K2.5 | 52.3% | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 49.2% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | | 48.7% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | MiMo-V2-Omni | 45.2% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | | 40.2% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 5.50% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 78.3% | Nov 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 70.4% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 68.5% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 68.3% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 67.8% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 63.8% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | | 63.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 63.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | GLM-5.1 | 62.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | Kimi K2.6 | 62.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | MiMo-V2.5 | 62.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 60.6% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 13 | GPT-5.4 | 60.3% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 59.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 58.8% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 58.8% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 57.8% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | MiMo-V2-Pro | 57.8% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 57.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 56.8% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | GLM-5-Turbo | 55.8% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | | 55% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 23 | GLM-5V-Turbo | 53.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | Kimi K2.5 | 52.3% | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | LFM3-1.7B | 51.4% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 26 | | 51% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 27 | | 50% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 28 | | 49.2% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | | 48.7% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | MiMo-V2-Omni | 45.2% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | | 40.2% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 32 | | 5.50% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
The benchmark's own leaderboard has 26 entries, 24 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
6 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in April 2026 Number one over time 2 models have held number one with claims included since its release in April 2026
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.
Sources: Official Claw-Eval Pass^3 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.
Sources: Official Claw-Eval Pass^3 leaderboard and labs’ model cards
3 labs put it in a launch post in the last six months
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2026 | 78.3 | Claw-Eval (Pass^3) | |
| Oct 27, 2026 | LFM3-1.7B | 51.4 | Claw-Eval General (EN), pass^3 |
| Jul 2, 2026 | 68.5 | ClawEval (pass^3) | |
| May 29, 2026 | 67.1 | Claweval-v1.1 (pass^3) | |
| Apr 29, 2026 | 51 | Claw-Eval (pass^3) | |
| Apr 27, 2026 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 63.8 | Claw-Eval (pass^3) |
| Apr 23, 2026 | 55 | ClawEval (pass^3) | |
| Apr 22, 2026 | 60.6 | Claw-Eval Pass^3 | |
| Apr 22, 2026 | MiMo-V2.5 | 62.3 | Claw-Eval Text |
| Apr 20, 2026 | Kimi K2.6 | 62.3 | Claw Eval (pass^3) |
| Apr 15, 2026 | 50 | Claw-Eval Pass^3 | |
| Apr 2, 2026 | 58.7 | Claw-Eval Pass^3 |
2 system cards report it, from 1 lab
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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2026 | | 63.8 | ClawEval (0424, Pass^3), high, no xhigh value (Table 6) | Capabilities |
| Jun 13, 2026 | | 51 | ClawEval, Pass@3 (Table 5) | Capabilities |
5 lab claims 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. 4 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.
| Model | Lab says | Board says | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| | 67.1% Claweval-v1.1 (pass^3) | 68.3% Leaderboard | −1.2 pts |
| | 58.7% Claw-Eval Pass^3 | 58.8% Leaderboard | Same |
| Kimi K2.6 | 62.3% Claw Eval (pass^3) | 62.3% Leaderboard | Same |
| MiMo-V2.5 | 62.3% Claw-Eval Text | 62.3% Leaderboard | Same |
| MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 63.8% Claw-Eval (pass^3) | 63.8% Leaderboard | Same |
More in Tool use
- AutomationBench In use Agent completes end-to-end business workflows inside a simulated company exposing dozens of REST APIs. Graded on resulting state.
Gemini 4 Carbon 53.9%
- MCP Atlas In use Multi-step workflows over real MCP servers. Scores tool-use competency on realistic tasks.
Gemini 4 Argon 90.7%
- BFCL V4 In use Models call functions and tools, including multi-turn agentic tasks with web search and memory. Checked against expected calls and outcomes.
Qwen3.7-Max 75%
- τ³-bench Banking In use Agents act as banking customer-service reps over many turns with a simulated user, following policy. Pass^1 on the final database state.
Qwen 3.8 Max 55.1%
- Toolathlon-Verified In use 108 long-horizon tasks across 32 apps through about 600 MCP tools. Execution-based checkers inspect final environment state. GLM-5.3-Flash 78.4%
- DeepSearchQA In use Questions that need multi-step search and synthesis. Final answers graded against references. Kimi K3 95%