Claw-Eval
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.
- Made by
- Claw-Eval team (academic)
- 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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 81.4 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 80.6 MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 80.5
Step 3.7 Flash
- 80.4 Claude Opus 4.6
- 78.4 GPT-5.4
- 78.4 MiMo-V2.5
- 77.9 Kimi K2.6
- 77.4
SenseNova 6.7 Flash-Lite
- 77.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 77.3 GLM-5.1
- 77.2
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 77.0 MiMo-V2-Pro
- 76.3
Muse Spark
- 75.0
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 74.9 Kimi K2.5
- 74.4 GLM-5-Turbo
- 74.2
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
- 74.2
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
- 74.0 GLM-5V-Turbo
- 74.0 Agnes-2.0-flash
- 72.6
MiniMax-M2.7
- 72.4 MiMo-V2-Omni
- 72.3
Gemini 3 Flash
- 71.6 Mach-Mind-4-pro
- 67.5
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 44.4
Nemotron 3 Super
- 1 Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4%
- 2 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 80.6%
- 3
Step 3.7 Flash 80.5%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.6 80.4%
- 5 GPT-5.4 78.4%
- 6 MiMo-V2.5 78.4%
- 7 Kimi K2.6 77.9%
- 8
SenseNova 6.7 Flash-Lite 77.4%
- 9
Gemini 3.1 Pro 77.3%
- 10 GLM-5.1 77.3%
- 11
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 77.2%
- 12 MiMo-V2-Pro 77%
- 13
Muse Spark 76.3%
- 14
Qwen 3.6 Plus 75%
- 15 Kimi K2.5 74.9%
- 16 GLM-5-Turbo 74.4%
- 17
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 74.2%
- 18
DeepSeek-V4-Flash 74.2%
- 19 GLM-5V-Turbo 74%
- 20 Agnes-2.0-flash 74%
- 21
MiniMax-M2.7 72.6%
- 22 MiMo-V2-Omni 72.4%
- 23
Gemini 3 Flash 72.3%
- 24 Mach-Mind-4-pro 71.6%
- 25
DeepSeek-V3.2 67.5%
- 26
Nemotron 3 Super 44.4%
Source: Official Claw-Eval leaderboard
- 81.4 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 80.6 MiMo-V2.5-Pro
- 80.5
Step 3.7 Flash
- 80.4 Claude Opus 4.6
- 80.0
K-EXAONE 2.0
- 78.4 GPT-5.4
- 78.4 MiMo-V2.5
- 77.9 Kimi K2.6
- 77.4
SenseNova 6.7 Flash-Lite
- 77.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 77.3 GLM-5.1
- 77.2
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 77.0 MiMo-V2-Pro
- 76.3
Muse Spark
- 75.0
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 75.0 GLM-5V-Turbo
- 74.9 Kimi K2.5
- 74.5
MiniMax-M3
- 74.4 GLM-5-Turbo
- 74.2
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
- 74.2
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
- 72.6
MiniMax-M2.7
- 72.4 MiMo-V2-Omni
- 72.4
Qwen3.6 27B
- 72.3
Gemini 3 Flash
- 69.9
Spark-X2.6-4B
- 68.7
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B
- 68.6 LFM3-1.7B
- 67.5
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 65.2
Qwen3.7-Max
- 63.8
Ring-2.6-1T
- 62.9 LFM2.5-2.6B
- 62.7
Qwen3.7-Plus
- 44.4
Nemotron 3 Super
- 1 Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4%
- 2 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 80.6%
- 3
Step 3.7 Flash 80.5%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.6 80.4%
- 5
K-EXAONE 2.0 80%
- 6 GPT-5.4 78.4%
- 7 MiMo-V2.5 78.4%
- 8 Kimi K2.6 77.9%
- 9
SenseNova 6.7 Flash-Lite 77.4%
- 10
Gemini 3.1 Pro 77.3%
- 11 GLM-5.1 77.3%
- 12
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 77.2%
- 13 MiMo-V2-Pro 77%
- 14
Muse Spark 76.3%
- 15
Qwen 3.6 Plus 75%
- 16 GLM-5V-Turbo 75%
- 17 Kimi K2.5 74.9%
- 18
MiniMax-M3 74.5%
- 19 GLM-5-Turbo 74.4%
- 20
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 74.2%
- 21
DeepSeek-V4-Flash 74.2%
- 22
MiniMax-M2.7 72.6%
- 23 MiMo-V2-Omni 72.4%
- 24
Qwen3.6 27B 72.4%
- 25
Gemini 3 Flash 72.3%
- 26
Spark-X2.6-4B 69.9%
- 27
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 68.7%
- 28 LFM3-1.7B 68.6%
- 29
DeepSeek-V3.2 67.5%
- 30
Qwen3.7-Max 65.2%
- 31
Ring-2.6-1T 63.8%
- 32 LFM2.5-2.6B 62.9%
- 33
Qwen3.7-Plus 62.7%
- 34
Nemotron 3 Super 44.4%
Sources: Official Claw-Eval leaderboard and labs’ model cards
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 81.4% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 80.6% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 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 | | 77.4% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 77.3% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | GLM-5.1 | 77.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 77.2% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | MiMo-V2-Pro | 77% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 76.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 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 | | 74.2% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | | 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 | | 72.6% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | MiMo-V2-Omni | 72.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | | 72.3% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | Mach-Mind-4-pro | 71.6% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 67.5% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | | 44.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 81.4% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 80.6% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 80.5% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 80.4% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 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 | | 77.4% | May 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 77.3% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | GLM-5.1 | 77.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 77.2% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | MiMo-V2-Pro | 77% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 76.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 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 | | 74.5% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 19 | GLM-5-Turbo | 74.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 74.2% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | | 74.2% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | | 72.6% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | MiMo-V2-Omni | 72.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 72.4% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 25 | | 72.3% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | | 69.9% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 27 | | 68.7% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 28 | LFM3-1.7B | 68.6% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 29 | | 67.5% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | | 65.2% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 31 | | 63.8% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 32 | LFM2.5-2.6B | 62.9% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 33 | | 62.7% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 34 | | 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.
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.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2026 | LFM3-1.7B | 68.6 | Claw-Eval General (EN), average |
| Oct 22, 2026 | 69.9 | ClawEval-EN | |
| Aug 4, 2026 | LFM2.5-2.6B | 62.9 | Claw-Eval average (EN) |
| Jul 31, 2026 | 77.7 | Claw-Eval | |
| Jun 1, 2026 | 62.7 | ClawEval | |
| Jun 1, 2026 | 74.5 | Claw-Eval | |
| May 20, 2026 | 65.2 | ClawEval | |
| May 14, 2026 | 63.8 | ClawEval (high) | |
| Apr 22, 2026 | 72.4 | Claw-Eval Avg | |
| Apr 15, 2026 | 68.7 | Claw-Eval Avg | |
| Apr 2, 2026 | 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2026 | | 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 |
| | 74.8% Claw-Eval Avg | 75% Leaderboard | −0.2 pts |
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%