Benchmark Almanac

DeepPlanning

Claude Opus 4.6 58.9% leads since February 2026
Qwen3.7-Plus 62.3% leads since June 2026
Fading

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.

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.

Abstract of DeepPlanning: Benchmarking Long-Horizon Agentic Planning with Verifiable Constraints (arXiv:2601.18137, CC0)
15
Models scored on its own leaderboard
10
Launch posts list it, from 1 lab

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:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.6 v1.1; max 58.9%
  2. 2 GPT-5.2 v1.1; high 48.2%
  3. 3 Qwen3.5-Plus v1.1; non-thinking 37.6%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.5 v1.1; thinking 37%
  5. 5 Gemini 3 Flash v1.1 33.8%
  6. 6 GPT-5 v1.1; high 30.5%
  7. 7 Qwen3-Max v1.1; thinking 29.7%
  8. 8 Gemini 3 Pro v1.1 27.4%
  9. 9 DeepSeek-V3.2 v1.1; thinking 27.4%
  10. 10 Claude Sonnet 4.5 v1.1; thinking 26.8%
  11. 11 Seed2.0 Pro v1.1; high 21.6%
  12. 12 Grok 4.1 Fast v1.1 19.1%
  13. 13 GLM-5 v1.1; thinking 14.6%
  14. 14 Kimi K2.5 v1.1; thinking 14.3%
  15. 15 o4-mini v1.1 13.7%

Source: Official DeepPlanning leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
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 Qwen3.5-Plus 37.6% v1.1; non-thinking Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.5 37% v1.1; thinking Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 3 Flash 33.8% v1.1 Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5 30.5% v1.1; high Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Qwen3-Max 29.7% v1.1; thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Gemini 3 Pro 27.4% v1.1 Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
9 DeepSeek-V3.2 27.4% v1.1; thinking Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Claude Sonnet 4.5 26.8% v1.1; thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Seed2.0 Pro 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
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen3.7-Plus 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 Qwen 3.6 Plus 41.5% Apr 2026 Lab model card
5 Qwen3.5-Plus 37.6% v1.1; non-thinking Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Opus 4.5 37% v1.1; thinking Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 34.3% Feb 2026 Lab model card
8 Gemini 3 Flash 33.8% v1.1 Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-5 30.5% v1.1; high Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Qwen3-Max 29.7% v1.1; thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Gemini 3 Pro 27.4% v1.1 Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
12 DeepSeek-V3.2 27.4% v1.1; thinking Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Claude Sonnet 4.5 26.8% v1.1; thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 25.9% Apr 2026 Lab model card
15 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 24.1% Feb 2026 Lab model card
16 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 22.8% Feb 2026 Lab model card
17 Qwen3.5-27B 22.6% Feb 2026 Lab model card
18 Seed2.0 Pro 21.6% v1.1; high Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
19 Grok 4.1 Fast 19.1% v1.1 Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
20 Qwen3.5-9B 18% Mar 2026 Lab model card
21 Qwen3.5-4B 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.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
GPT-5.2
v1.1 v1.1; high
48.2%
Qwen3.5-Plus
v1.1; think…
37.6%
Claude Opus 4.5
v1.1; non-t… v1.1; think…
37%
Qwen3-Max
v1.1; non-t… v1.1; think…
29.7%
DeepSeek-V3.2
v1.1; non-t… v1.1; think…
27.4%
Claude Sonnet 4.5
v1.1; non-t… v1.1; think…
26.8%

Source: Official DeepPlanning leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 4.6 v1.1; max 58.9%
GPT-5.2 v1.1; high 48.2%
Qwen3.5-Plus v1.1; non-thinking 37.6%
Claude Opus 4.5 v1.1; thinking 37%
Qwen3.5-Plus v1.1; thinking 35.9%
Gemini 3 Flash v1.1 33.8%
GPT-5 v1.1; high 30.5%
Qwen3-Max v1.1; thinking 29.7%
Gemini 3 Pro v1.1 27.4%
DeepSeek-V3.2 v1.1; thinking 27.4%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 v1.1; thinking 26.8%
Claude Opus 4.5 v1.1; non-thinking 26.4%
Seed2.0 Pro v1.1; high 21.6%
Grok 4.1 Fast v1.1 19.1%
DeepSeek-V3.2 v1.1; non-thinking 19%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 v1.1; non-thinking 16.1%
Qwen3-Max 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.

OpenAI Anthropic Qwen
Own leaderboard Not tested since Feb 2026
Lab claims Not tested since Jun 2026
Qwen3.7-Plus 62.3%

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.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen3.7-Plus Claude Opus 4.6 GPT-5.2 Claude Opus 4.5 GPT-5 o4-mini 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen3.7-Plus GPT-5.2

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.

Qwen
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Jun 1, 2026 Qwen3.7-Plus 62.3 Deep-Planning
Apr 15, 2026 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 25.9 DeepPlanning
Apr 2, 2026 Qwen 3.6 Plus 41.5 DeepPlanning
Mar 2, 2026 Qwen3.5-4B 17.6 DeepPlanning
Mar 2, 2026 Qwen3.5-9B 18 DeepPlanning
Feb 24, 2026 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 22.8 DeepPlanning
Feb 24, 2026 Qwen3.5-27B 22.6 DeepPlanning
Feb 24, 2026 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 24.1 DeepPlanning
Feb 16, 2026 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 34.3 DeepPlanning
Jan 23, 2026 Qwen3-Max 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.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
Qwen3-Max 28.7% Deep Planning 29.7% Leaderboard, v1.1; thinking −1.0 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%