Benchmark Almanac

Claw-Eval

Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4% leads since March 2026
Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4% leads since March 2026
In use

300 human-verified agent tasks (service orchestration, multimodal, multi-turn dialogue) audited via traces and snapshots. Rubric scores with Pass^3 consistency.

Uses an LLM judge (Gemini 3 Flash) for open-ended rubric items. Pass^3 requires all three trials to pass.

Released
March 2026
Kind
General assistants
Level
Everyday
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
October 2026
Last model added
October 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.

Abstract of Claw-Eval: Towards Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents (arXiv:2604.06132, CC0)
26
Entries on its own leaderboard, 24 models we track
14
Launch posts list it, from 8 labs
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads with 81.4% among models released by May 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. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads with 81.4%, 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.

The newest model with a score here came out in May 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 Sonnet 4.6 81.4%
  2. 2 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 80.6%
  3. 3 Step 3.7 Flash 80.5%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.6 80.4%
  5. 5 GPT-5.4 78.4%
  6. 6 MiMo-V2.5 78.4%
  7. 7 Kimi K2.6 77.9%
  8. 8 SenseNova 6.7 Flash-Lite 77.4%
  9. 9 Gemini 3.1 Pro 77.3%
  10. 10 GLM-5.1 77.3%
  11. 11 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 77.2%
  12. 12 MiMo-V2-Pro 77%
  13. 13 Muse Spark 76.3%
  14. 14 Qwen 3.6 Plus 75%
  15. 15 Kimi K2.5 74.9%
  16. 16 GLM-5-Turbo 74.4%
  17. 17 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 74.2%
  18. 18 DeepSeek-V4-Flash 74.2%
  19. 19 GLM-5V-Turbo 74%
  20. 20 Agnes-2.0-flash 74%
  21. 21 MiniMax-M2.7 72.6%
  22. 22 MiMo-V2-Omni 72.4%
  23. 23 Gemini 3 Flash 72.3%
  24. 24 Mach-Mind-4-pro 71.6%
  25. 25 DeepSeek-V3.2 67.5%
  26. 26 Nemotron 3 Super 44.4%

Source: Official Claw-Eval leaderboard

Sources: Official Claw-Eval leaderboard and labs’ model cards

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 80.6% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Step 3.7 Flash 80.5% May 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.6 80.4% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-5.4 78.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
6 MiMo-V2.5 78.4% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Kimi K2.6 77.9% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 SenseNova 6.7 Flash-Lite 77.4% May 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Gemini 3.1 Pro 77.3% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GLM-5.1 77.3% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 77.2% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
12 MiMo-V2-Pro 77% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Muse Spark 76.3% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen 3.6 Plus 75% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Kimi K2.5 74.9% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
16 GLM-5-Turbo 74.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 74.2% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
18 DeepSeek-V4-Flash 74.2% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
19 GLM-5V-Turbo 74% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
20 Agnes-2.0-flash 74% May 2026 Official leaderboard
21 MiniMax-M2.7 72.6% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
22 MiMo-V2-Omni 72.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
23 Gemini 3 Flash 72.3% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
24 Mach-Mind-4-pro 71.6% May 2026 Official leaderboard
25 DeepSeek-V3.2 67.5% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
26 Nemotron 3 Super 44.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 80.6% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Step 3.7 Flash 80.5% May 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.6 80.4% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
5 K-EXAONE 2.0 80% Aug 2026 Lab model card
6 GPT-5.4 78.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
7 MiMo-V2.5 78.4% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Kimi K2.6 77.9% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
9 SenseNova 6.7 Flash-Lite 77.4% May 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Gemini 3.1 Pro 77.3% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
11 GLM-5.1 77.3% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
12 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 77.2% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
13 MiMo-V2-Pro 77% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Muse Spark 76.3% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen 3.6 Plus 75% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
16 GLM-5V-Turbo 75% Apr 2026 Lab model card
17 Kimi K2.5 74.9% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
18 MiniMax-M3 74.5% Jun 2026 Lab model card
19 GLM-5-Turbo 74.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
20 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 74.2% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
21 DeepSeek-V4-Flash 74.2% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
22 MiniMax-M2.7 72.6% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
23 MiMo-V2-Omni 72.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
24 Qwen3.6 27B 72.4% Apr 2026 Lab model card
25 Gemini 3 Flash 72.3% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
26 Spark-X2.6-4B 69.9% Oct 2026 Lab model card
27 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 68.7% Apr 2026 Lab model card
28 LFM3-1.7B 68.6% Oct 2026 Lab model card
29 DeepSeek-V3.2 67.5% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
30 Qwen3.7-Max 65.2% May 2026 Lab model card
31 Ring-2.6-1T 63.8% May 2026 Lab model card
32 LFM2.5-2.6B 62.9% Aug 2026 Lab model card
33 Qwen3.7-Plus 62.7% Jun 2026 Lab model card
34 Nemotron 3 Super 44.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 13 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Number one over time Number one over time

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.

Anthropic Xiaomi Corp Z.ai LG AI Research
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2026
Lab claims 3 leaders

Sources: Official Claw-Eval 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% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Sonnet 4.6 Kimi K2.5 DeepSeek-V3.2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Sonnet 4.6 Kimi K2.5

Sources: Official Claw-Eval leaderboard and labs’ model cards

5 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.

Xiaomi Corp
Z.ai
Qwen
Ant Group
MiniMax
LG AI Research
Liquid AI
iFlytek
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Oct 27, 2026 LFM3-1.7B 68.6 Claw-Eval General (EN), average
Oct 22, 2026 Spark-X2.6-4B 69.9 ClawEval-EN
Aug 4, 2026 LFM2.5-2.6B 62.9 Claw-Eval average (EN)
Jul 31, 2026 K-EXAONE 2.0 77.7 Claw-Eval
Jun 1, 2026 Qwen3.7-Plus 62.7 ClawEval
Jun 1, 2026 MiniMax-M3 74.5 Claw-Eval
May 20, 2026 Qwen3.7-Max 65.2 ClawEval
May 14, 2026 Ring-2.6-1T 63.8 ClawEval (high)
Apr 22, 2026 Qwen3.6 27B 72.4 Claw-Eval Avg
Apr 15, 2026 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 68.7 Claw-Eval Avg
Apr 2, 2026 Qwen 3.6 Plus 74.8 Claw-Eval Avg
Apr 1, 2026 GLM-5V-Turbo 75 ClawEval Pass^3 / Pass@3 57.7 / 75.0
Mar 18, 2026 MiMo-V2-Omni 54.8 Claw Eval
Mar 18, 2026 MiMo-V2-Pro ClawEval

One system card reports it

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
Aug 5, 2026 K-EXAONE 2.0 technical report 80 Claw-Eval (general). The model card prints 77.7 (Table 6, Reasoning mode) Capabilities

The lab's number comes out ahead in 1 of 3 pairs that differ

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
MiMo-V2-Omni 54.8% Claw Eval 72.4% Leaderboard −18 pts
GLM-5V-Turbo 75% ClawEval Pass^3 / Pass@3 57.7 / 75.0 74% Leaderboard +1.0 pts
Qwen 3.6 Plus 74.8% Claw-Eval Avg 75% Leaderboard −0.2 pts

More in Tool use

All 144 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%