Benchmark Almanac

EdgeBench

Claude Opus 4.8 51.3 leads since July 2026
Not in model cards

Agents iterate for up to 12 hours on 134 executable real-world tasks with multi-level feedback. Scores are tracked at 2 hour steps to measure learning from the environment.

51 of the 134 tasks are open source. Tasks fall in six groups: scientific and ML, systems and SE, optimization, knowledge, formal and games. The harness is called SForge.

Made by
ByteDance Seed
Released
July 2026
Kind
Long terminal sessions
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
Public, plus a private test set
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.5 #20 on the capability index
Last model added
May 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Pretraining scaling laws reveal that model capability improves predictably with data and compute. But learning from real world environments after deployment remains far less understood. Analyzing roughly 38,000 hours of agent interaction with the environment across 134 real world tasks, we find, to the best of our knowledge, the first evidence that overall performance during environment learning follows a log-sigmoid scaling law with remarkably high precision, reaching R^2 = 0.998. Across model generations, we also find that agent learning speed roughly doubles every three months. This discovery stems from EdgeBench, a suite of 134 real world tasks with ultra-long horizons, spanning scientific discovery, software engineering, combinatorial optimization, professional knowledge work, formal mathematics, and interactive games. Each task sustains at least 12 hours of continuous agent operation under rich, multilevel feedback, and is built through substantial expert effort. We publicly release 51 tasks and our full evaluation framework to accelerate the study of how agents learn from real world experience.

Abstract of EdgeBench: Unveiling Scaling Laws of Learning from Real-World Environments (arXiv:2607.05155, CC0)
5
Models scored on its own leaderboard

Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 51.3 among models released by May 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.

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 Opus 4.8 @12h 51.3
  2. 2 GPT-5.5 @12h 48.4
  3. 3 GPT-5.4 @12h 39.3
  4. 4 GLM-5.1 @12h 37.4
  5. 5 DeepSeek-V4-Pro @12h 31.0

Source: Official EdgeBench leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.8 51.3 @12h May 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.5 48.4 @12h Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5.4 39.3 @12h Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
4 GLM-5.1 37.4 @12h Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
5 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 31.0 @12h Apr 2026 Official leaderboard

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
Claude Opus 4.8
@2h @4h @8h
51.3
GPT-5.5
@2h @4h @8h
48.4
GPT-5.4
@2h @4h @8h
39.3
GLM-5.1
@2h @4h @8h
37.4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
@2h @4h @10h
31.0

Source: Official EdgeBench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 4.8 @12h 51.3
Claude Opus 4.8 @10h 50.9
Claude Opus 4.8 @8h 49.8
GPT-5.5 @12h 48.4
Claude Opus 4.8 @6h 48.1
GPT-5.5 @10h 47.6
GPT-5.5 @8h 46.3
Claude Opus 4.8 @4h 45.7
GPT-5.5 @6h 44.5
GPT-5.5 @4h 42.1
GPT-5.4 @12h 39.3
Claude Opus 4.8 @2h 39.0
GPT-5.4 @10h 38.9
GPT-5.4 @8h 38.0
GLM-5.1 @12h 37.4
GPT-5.5 @2h 36.8
GPT-5.4 @6h 36.5
GLM-5.1 @10h 36.5
GLM-5.1 @8h 34.9
GPT-5.4 @4h 34.0
GLM-5.1 @6h 32.9
DeepSeek-V4-Pro @12h 31.0
DeepSeek-V4-Pro @10h 30.9
GLM-5.1 @4h 30.4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro @8h 29.9
GPT-5.4 @2h 29.7
DeepSeek-V4-Pro @6h 29.0
DeepSeek-V4-Pro @4h 27.1
GLM-5.1 @2h 26.0
DeepSeek-V4-Pro @2h 23.3

Number one over time

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

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jul 2026

Source: Official EdgeBench 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
20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 2026 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 2026

Source: Official EdgeBench 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 Terminal agents

All 19 in Terminal agents
  • SkillsBench In use 86-87 containerized expert tasks in 11 domains, run with and without Agent Skills. Verifier tests give pass rate and skill lift. GPT-5.5 67.3%
  • Terminal-Bench Hard In use Agents complete 44 hard tasks from Terminal-Bench Core in the Terminus 2 harness. Artificial Analysis scores pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats. Gemma 4 31B IT 36%
  • Harbor-Index In use Agents solve about 80 hard tasks drawn from 29 benchmarks run through Harbor adapters, such as HLE, GSO and SWE-bench Pro. Each task keeps its source verifier. GPT-5.5 28.1%
  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 Extended Not in model cards Agents complete long command-line tasks in containers, scored by verification tests. Mercor adds 99 new expert-written tasks to the 89 public ones and reports both scores. Muse Wonder 54%
  • Terminal-Bench 4.1 Not in model cards The Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks with hardened verifiers: agents complete 66 hard tasks in containerized terminals across software, ML, science, security, and operations. Test scripts verify each result, scored as resolution rate. Claude Opus 5.5 65.8%
  • o11y-bench Not in model cards Agents query metrics, logs and traces in a live Grafana stack, investigate incidents and fix dashboards. Grading checks claims against facts read from the same environment. Claude Opus 5.5 93.8%