DeepPlanning
Agents use tools to plan multi-day trips and multi-item shopping orders under time and budget limits. Plans are checked against verifiable constraints.
Qwen revised some shopping tasks and corrected some answer labels after the first release.
- Made by
- Qwen Team, Alibaba Group
- Released
- January 2026
- Kind
- General assistants
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- Claude Opus 4.6 #37 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- June 2026, dropped before it saturated
- Last model added
- June 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
While agent evaluation has shifted toward long-horizon tasks, most benchmarks still emphasize local, step-level reasoning rather than the global constrained optimization (e.g., time and financial budgets) that demands genuine planning ability. Meanwhile, existing LLM planning benchmarks underrepresent the active information gathering and fine-grained local constraints typical of real-world settings. To address this, we introduce DeepPlanning, a challenging benchmark for practical long-horizon agent planning. It features multi-day travel planning and multi-product shopping tasks that require proactive information acquisition, local constrained reasoning, and global constrained optimization. Evaluations on DeepPlanning show that even frontier agentic LLMs struggle with these problems, highlighting the importance of reliable explicit reasoning patterns and parallel tool use for achieving better effectiveness-efficiency trade-offs. Error analysis further points to promising directions for improving agentic LLMs over long planning horizons. We open-source the code and data to support future research.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 58.9% among models released by February 2026
Best score per model 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.
Qwen3.7-Plus leads with 62.3%, 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.
The newest model with a score here came out in February 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
- 1 Claude Opus 4.6 v1.1; max 58.9%
- 2 GPT-5.2 v1.1; high 48.2%
- 3
Qwen3.5-Plus v1.1; non-thinking 37.6%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.5 v1.1; thinking 37%
- 5
Gemini 3 Flash v1.1 33.8%
- 6 GPT-5 v1.1; high 30.5%
- 7
Qwen3-Max v1.1; thinking 29.7%
- 8
Gemini 3 Pro v1.1 27.4%
- 9
DeepSeek-V3.2 v1.1; thinking 27.4%
- 10 Claude Sonnet 4.5 v1.1; thinking 26.8%
- 11
Seed2.0 Pro v1.1; high 21.6%
- 12 Grok 4.1 Fast v1.1 19.1%
- 13 GLM-5 v1.1; thinking 14.6%
- 14 Kimi K2.5 v1.1; thinking 14.3%
- 15 o4-mini v1.1 13.7%
Source: Official DeepPlanning leaderboard
- 62.3
Qwen3.7-Plus
- 58.9 Claude Opus 4.6
- 48.2 GPT-5.2
- 41.5
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 37.6
Qwen3.5-Plus
- 37.0 Claude Opus 4.5
- 34.3
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
- 33.8
Gemini 3 Flash
- 30.5 GPT-5
- 29.7
Qwen3-Max
- 27.4
Gemini 3 Pro
- 27.4
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 26.8 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 25.9
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B
- 24.1
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- 22.8
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
- 22.6
Qwen3.5-27B
- 21.6
Seed2.0 Pro
- 19.1 Grok 4.1 Fast
- 18.0
Qwen3.5-9B
- 17.6
Qwen3.5-4B
- 14.6 GLM-5
- 14.3 Kimi K2.5
- 13.7 o4-mini
- 1
Qwen3.7-Plus 62.3%
- 2 Claude Opus 4.6 v1.1; max 58.9%
- 3 GPT-5.2 v1.1; high 48.2%
- 4
Qwen 3.6 Plus 41.5%
- 5
Qwen3.5-Plus v1.1; non-thinking 37.6%
- 6 Claude Opus 4.5 v1.1; thinking 37%
- 7
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 34.3%
- 8
Gemini 3 Flash v1.1 33.8%
- 9 GPT-5 v1.1; high 30.5%
- 10
Qwen3-Max v1.1; thinking 29.7%
- 11
Gemini 3 Pro v1.1 27.4%
- 12
DeepSeek-V3.2 v1.1; thinking 27.4%
- 13 Claude Sonnet 4.5 v1.1; thinking 26.8%
- 14
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 25.9%
- 15
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 24.1%
- 16
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 22.8%
- 17
Qwen3.5-27B 22.6%
- 18
Seed2.0 Pro v1.1; high 21.6%
- 19 Grok 4.1 Fast v1.1 19.1%
- 20
Qwen3.5-9B 18%
- 21
Qwen3.5-4B 17.6%
- 22 GLM-5 v1.1; thinking 14.6%
- 23 Kimi K2.5 v1.1; thinking 14.3%
- 24 o4-mini v1.1 13.7%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official DeepPlanning leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 58.9% | v1.1; max | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GPT-5.2 | 48.2% | v1.1; high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 37.6% | v1.1; non-thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 37% | v1.1; thinking | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 33.8% | v1.1 | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | GPT-5 | 30.5% | v1.1; high | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 29.7% | v1.1; thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | | 27.4% | v1.1 | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | | 27.4% | v1.1; thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 26.8% | v1.1; thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 21.6% | v1.1; high | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | Grok 4.1 Fast | 19.1% | v1.1 | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | GLM-5 | 14.6% | v1.1; thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | Kimi K2.5 | 14.3% | v1.1; thinking | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | o4-mini | 13.7% | v1.1 | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 62.3% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 58.9% | v1.1; max | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | GPT-5.2 | 48.2% | v1.1; high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 41.5% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | | 37.6% | v1.1; non-thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 37% | v1.1; thinking | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 34.3% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | | 33.8% | v1.1 | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | GPT-5 | 30.5% | v1.1; high | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 29.7% | v1.1; thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 27.4% | v1.1 | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 27.4% | v1.1; thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 26.8% | v1.1; thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 25.9% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 15 | | 24.1% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 16 | | 22.8% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 17 | | 22.6% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 18 | | 21.6% | v1.1; high | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | Grok 4.1 Fast | 19.1% | v1.1 | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | | 18% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 21 | | 17.6% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 22 | GLM-5 | 14.6% | v1.1; thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | Kimi K2.5 | 14.3% | v1.1; thinking | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 24 | o4-mini | 13.7% | v1.1 | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 10 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
Scores at each effort level
Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.
Source: Official DeepPlanning leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.6 | v1.1; max | 58.9% | |||
| GPT-5.2 | v1.1; high | 48.2% | |||
| | v1.1; non-thinking | 37.6% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | v1.1; thinking | 37% | |||
| | v1.1; thinking | 35.9% | |||
| | v1.1 | 33.8% | |||
| GPT-5 | v1.1; high | 30.5% | |||
| | v1.1; thinking | 29.7% | |||
| | v1.1 | 27.4% | |||
| | v1.1; thinking | 27.4% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | v1.1; thinking | 26.8% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | v1.1; non-thinking | 26.4% | |||
| | v1.1; high | 21.6% | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | v1.1 | 19.1% | |||
| | v1.1; non-thinking | 19% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | v1.1; non-thinking | 16.1% | |||
| | v1.1; non-thinking | 15.4% | |||
| GLM-5 | v1.1; thinking | 14.6% | |||
| Kimi K2.5 | v1.1; thinking | 14.3% | |||
| o4-mini | v1.1 | 13.7% | |||
| GPT-5.2 | v1.1 | 6.80% | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | v1.1 | 5.20% |
2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in January 2026 3 models have held number one with claims included since its release in January 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 DeepPlanning 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 DeepPlanning leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Labs headline it less often now, last in June 2026
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2026 | 62.3 | Deep-Planning | |
| Apr 15, 2026 | 25.9 | DeepPlanning | |
| Apr 2, 2026 | 41.5 | DeepPlanning | |
| Mar 2, 2026 | 17.6 | DeepPlanning | |
| Mar 2, 2026 | 18 | DeepPlanning | |
| Feb 24, 2026 | 22.8 | DeepPlanning | |
| Feb 24, 2026 | 22.6 | DeepPlanning | |
| Feb 24, 2026 | 24.1 | DeepPlanning | |
| Feb 16, 2026 | 34.3 | DeepPlanning | |
| Jan 23, 2026 | 28.7 | Deep Planning |
One lab claim 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. Every benchmark.
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%