Benchmark Almanac

EnterpriseBench: CoreCraft

Claude Fable 5.1 77.4% leads since September 2026
In use

Agents work inside a simulated hardware startup with more than 2,500 entities and 23 tools. They triage incidents, audit shipments and handle customers under company policy.

CoreCraft is the first environment in the EnterpriseBench suite. GPT-5.2 and Claude Opus 4.6 solved about 30% of tasks at launch.

Made by
Surge AI
Released
February 2026
Kind
Simulated companies
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
Kept private
Strongest model tested
GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
November 2026
Last model added
November 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

We show that training AI agents on high-fidelity reinforcement learning environments produces capabilities that generalize beyond the training distribution. We introduce CoreCraft, the first environment in EnterpriseBench, Surge AI's suite of agentic RL environments. CoreCraft is a fully operational enterprise simulation of a customer support organization, comprising over 2,500 entities across 14 entity types with 23 unique tools, designed to measure whether AI agents can perform the multi-step, domain-specific work that real jobs demand. Frontier models such as GPT-5.2 and Claude Opus 4.6 solve fewer than 30% of tasks when all expert-authored rubric criteria must be satisfied. Using this environment, we train GLM 4.6 with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and adaptive clipping. After a single epoch of training, the model improves from 25.37% to 36.76% task pass rate on held-out evaluation tasks. More importantly, these gains transfer to out-of-distribution benchmarks: +4.5% on BFCL Parallel, +7.4% on Tau2-Bench Retail, and +6.8% on Tool Decathlon (Pass@1). We believe three environment properties are consistent with the observed transfer: task-centric world building that optimizes for diverse, challenging tasks; expert-authored rubrics enabling reliable reward computation; and enterprise workflows that reflect realistic professional patterns. Our results suggest that environment quality, diversity, and realism are key factors enabling generalizable agent capabilities.

Abstract of EnterpriseBench Corecraft: Training Generalizable Agents on High-Fidelity RL Environments (arXiv:2602.16179, CC0)
55
Entries on its own leaderboard, 51 models we track
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab

Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 77.4%

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.

  1. 1 Claude Fable 5.1 adaptive/max 77.4%
  2. 2 Claude Opus 5.5 adaptive/max 74.4%
  3. 3 Inkling 2 Small xhigh 71.8%
  4. 4 Claude Sonnet 5.5 adaptive/max 70.8%
  5. 5 Claude Fable 5 adaptive/max 70.3%
  6. 6 Claude Opus 5 adaptive/max 68.7%
  7. 7 Grok 4.7 xhigh 68.2%
  8. 8 Kimi K3.1 Pro max 66.1%
  9. 9 Grok 4.6 xhigh 65.6%
  10. 10 Tencent Hy4 preview high 64.6%
  11. 11 Muse Spark 1.3 xhigh 61.9%
  12. 12 Muse Wonder max 61.5%
  13. 13 Gemini 3.8 Flash high 58.5%
  14. 14 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 max 58.5%
  15. 15 Qwen3.8 Flash xhigh 57.4%
  16. 16 Gemini 3.7 Flash high 55.9%
  17. 17 DeepSeek-V4-Pro max 53.3%
  18. 18 Claude Opus 4.8 adaptive/max 52.3%
  19. 19 Muse Glimmer 30B xhigh 51.8%
  20. 20 GLM-5.3 max 51.8%
  21. 21 GPT-5.5 xhigh 51.3%
  22. 22 Claude Sonnet 5 adaptive/max 51.3%
  23. 23 Gemini 3.5 Flash high 50.8%
  24. 24 GPT-6.1 Sol max 50.3%
  25. 25 Beam 1.0 max 49.2%
  26. 26 Mistral Large 4 high 47.7%
  27. 27 GLM-5.3-Flash max 46.7%
  28. 28 GPT-5.6 Sol max 46.2%
  29. 29 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (experimental) max 45.6%
  30. 30 Kimi K3 max 43.1%
  31. 31 GPT-6 Luna max 43.1%
  32. 32 GPT-6 Sol max 43.1%
  33. 33 GPT-5.2 xhigh 42.6%
  34. 34 GPT-6 Astra max 42.6%
  35. 35 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash max 41.5%
  36. 36 Tencent Hy3 high 41%
  37. 37 Gemini 3.6 Flash high 39.5%
  38. 38 GPT-5.4 xhigh 36.4%
  39. 39 Claude Opus 4.7 adaptive/max 35.9%
  40. 40 Claude Opus 4.6 adaptive/max 30.8%
  41. 41 Gemini 3.1 Pro high 27.2%
  42. 42 Qwen3.7-Max thinking on 26.2%
  43. 43 Kimi K2.6 thinking on 24.6%
  44. 44 DeepSeek-V3.2 high 24.1%
  45. 45 Grok 4.1 Fast 20.5%
  46. 46 GPT-5.2 Codex xhigh 20.1%
  47. 47 Gemini 3 Flash high 20%
  48. 48 GLM-5 auto 17.4%
  49. 49 Gemini 3 Pro high 14.4%
  50. 50 Qwen3.5-Plus thinking on 11.3%
  51. 51 Nemotron Lightning 3.5 30B A3B thinking on 10.3%
  52. 52 Nova 2 Pro high 8.90%
  53. 53 Kimi K2.5 thinking on 8.70%
  54. 54 Qwen3-Max thinking on 3.60%
  55. 55 Mistral Large 3 3.60%

Source: Official EnterpriseBench: CoreCraft leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Fable 5.1 77.4% adaptive/max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Opus 5.5 74.4% adaptive/max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Inkling 2 Small 71.8% xhigh Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Sonnet 5.5 70.8% adaptive/max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Fable 5 70.3% adaptive/max Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Opus 5 68.7% adaptive/max Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Grok 4.7 68.2% xhigh Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Kimi K3.1 Pro 66.1% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Grok 4.6 65.6% xhigh Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Tencent Hy4 preview 64.6% high Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Muse Spark 1.3 61.9% xhigh Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Muse Wonder 61.5% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Gemini 3.8 Flash 58.5% high Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
14 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 58.5% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen3.8 Flash 57.4% xhigh Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Gemini 3.7 Flash 55.9% high Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
17 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 53.3% max Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
18 Claude Opus 4.8 52.3% adaptive/max May 2026 Official leaderboard
19 Muse Glimmer 30B 51.8% xhigh Official leaderboard
20 GLM-5.3 51.8% max Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
21 GPT-5.5 51.3% xhigh Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
22 Claude Sonnet 5 51.3% adaptive/max Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
23 Gemini 3.5 Flash 50.8% high May 2026 Official leaderboard
24 GPT-6.1 Sol 50.3% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
25 Beam 1.0 49.2% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
26 Mistral Large 4 47.7% high Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
27 GLM-5.3-Flash 46.7% max Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
28 GPT-5.6 Sol 46.2% max Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
29 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (experimental) 45.6% max Official leaderboard
30 Kimi K3 43.1% max Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
31 GPT-6 Luna 43.1% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
32 GPT-6 Sol 43.1% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
33 GPT-5.2 42.6% xhigh Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
34 GPT-6 Astra 42.6% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
35 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 41.5% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
36 Tencent Hy3 41% high Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
37 Gemini 3.6 Flash 39.5% high Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
38 GPT-5.4 36.4% xhigh Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
39 Claude Opus 4.7 35.9% adaptive/max Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
40 Claude Opus 4.6 30.8% adaptive/max Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
41 Gemini 3.1 Pro 27.2% high Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
42 Qwen3.7-Max 26.2% thinking on May 2026 Official leaderboard
43 Kimi K2.6 24.6% thinking on Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
44 DeepSeek-V3.2 24.1% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
45 Grok 4.1 Fast 20.5% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
46 GPT-5.2 Codex 20.1% xhigh Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
47 Gemini 3 Flash 20% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
48 GLM-5 17.4% auto Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
49 Gemini 3 Pro 14.4% high Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
50 Qwen3.5-Plus 11.3% thinking on Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
51 Nemotron Lightning 3.5 30B A3B 10.3% thinking on Official leaderboard
52 Nova 2 Pro 8.90% high Official leaderboard
53 Kimi K2.5 8.70% thinking on Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
54 Qwen3-Max 3.60% thinking on Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
55 Mistral Large 3 3.60% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

5 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in February 2026

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

OpenAI DeepSeek Anthropic
Own leaderboard 5 leaders

Source: Official EnterpriseBench: CoreCraft 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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5.1 Claude Fable 5 DeepSeek-V4-Pro GPT-5.2 DeepSeek-V3.2 Gemini 3 Pro Qwen3-Max 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5.1 Claude Fable 5

Sources: Official EnterpriseBench: CoreCraft leaderboard and labs’ model cards

One lab 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.

Thinking Machines
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Nov 5, 2026 Inkling 2 Small 71.8 EnterpriseBench-CoreCraft

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. 1 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
Inkling 2 Small 71.8% EnterpriseBench-CoreCraft 71.8% Leaderboard, xhigh Same

More in Economic work

All 97 in Economic work
  • JobBench In use 130 tasks from 35 occupations workers most want delegated. Agent works through messy reference files, graded by fact-anchored binary rubrics. GLM-5.3 61.4%
  • GDPval In use Real work tasks from 44 occupations with reference files. Experts blindly compare model deliverables with expert work. Metric is win-or-tie rate. Seed2.1 Pro 87.9%
  • GDPval-AA v2.1 In use Agents with shell and web access complete 220 GDPval gold tasks from 44 occupations. Blind pairwise comparisons give Elo ratings. Claude Opus 5.5 1,846
  • AA-Briefcase v1.1 In use Version 1.1 of Artificial Analysis's multi-hour office work evaluation, with Elo ratings fitted by Crowd-BT. Claude Opus 5.5 1,822
  • CoWorkBench In use Agent completes long-horizon productivity tasks across computer science, finance, law and medicine. Qwen in-house scoring (method unpublished). Claude Fable 5 75.9%
  • OfficeQA In use Grounded reasoning over a large corpus of U.S. Treasury Bulletin documents: locate tables and compute precise numeric answers. Claude Opus 4.7 86.3%