Benchmark Almanac

Cooperate to Compete (C2C)

Gemini 3.1 Pro 0.74 leads since April 2026
Not in model cards

Multi-player conquest game with private non-binding negotiation and secret asymmetric objectives. LM agents and humans are ranked by Plackett-Luce player strength from their game results.

Includes an 82-game human study with matched AI-only games from the same starting positions.

Made by
UC Berkeley
Released
April 2026
Kind
Multi-agent games
Level
Everyday
Scored
Ranked by matches
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Gemini 3.1 Pro #39 on the capability index
Last model added
March 2026
Scores refreshed
November 8th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Language Model (LM)-based agents remain largely untested in mixed-motive settings where agents must leverage short-term cooperation for long-term competitive goals (e.g., multi-party politics). We introduce Cooperate to Compete (C2C), a multi-agent environment where players can engage in private negotiations while competing to be the first to achieve their secret objective. Players have asymmetric objectives and negotiations are non-binding, allowing alliances to form and break as players' short-term interests align and diverge. We run AI only games and conduct a user study pitting human players against AI opponents. We identify significant differences between human and AI negotiation behaviors, finding that humans favor lower-complexity deals and are significantly less reliable partners compared to LM-based agents. We also find that humans are more aggressive negotiators, accepting deals without a counteroffer only 56.3% of the time compared to 67.6% for LM-based agents. Through targeted prompting inspired by these findings, we modify agents' negotiation behavior and improve win rates from 22.2% to 32.7%. We run over 1,100 games with over 16,000 private conversations totaling 15.2 million tokens and over 150,000 player actions. Our results establish C2C as a testbed for studying and building LM-based agents that can navigate the sophisticated coordination required for real-world deployments. The game, code, and dataset may be found at https://negotiationgame.io/c2c.

Abstract of Cooperate to Compete: Strategic Coordination in Multi-Agent Conquest (arXiv:2604.25088, CC0)
6
Entries on its own leaderboard, 5 models we track

Gemini 3.1 Pro leads with 0.74 among models released by March 2026

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 8th, 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 newest model with a score here came out in March 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 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0.74
  2. 2 Human 0.70
  3. 3 Grok 4.1 Fast reasoning 0.69
  4. 4 GPT-5.2 0.35
  5. 5 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite -0.42
  6. 6 GPT-4.1 mini -1.97

Source: Official Cooperate to Compete (C2C) leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0.74 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Human 0.70 Official leaderboard
3 Grok 4.1 Fast 0.69 reasoning Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5.2 0.35 Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite -0.42 Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-4.1 mini -1.97 Apr 2025 Official leaderboard

Number one over time

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

Google DeepMind
Own leaderboard Not tested since Apr 2026

Source: Official Cooperate to Compete (C2C) 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
-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2025 2026 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2025 2026

Source: Official Cooperate to Compete (C2C) 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 Games and long tasks

All 82 in Games and long tasks
  • ARC-AGI-3 In use Interactive game environments where agents must explore, infer goals and rules, and act efficiently without instructions. GPT-6 Astra 99.95%
  • Orak Fading LLM agents play 12 popular video games across most genres through an MCP interface. Each game scores in-game progress or outcomes, and the board ranks models by their average rank across the games. Gemini 2.5 Pro 3.90
  • MineDojo Fading Agents complete open-ended tasks in Minecraft, such as mining blocks and fighting mobs, from a large simulation suite. Programmatic checks score many tasks. Seed2.0 Pro 49%
  • TextQuests Only in system cards Agents play 25 classic interactive fiction games. The score is harmful actions per 100 steps, where lower is better. The board also reports game progress. Llama 4 Scout 7.00
  • GameWorld Only in system cards Multimodal game agents play 34 browser games across 170 tasks. Outcomes are checked from the game state. GPT-6.1 Terra 76.8%
  • Swarm Bench Only in system cards Models orchestrate agent swarms on complex tasks that benefit from coordinated decomposition and parallel execution. Kimi K3 76.3%