EnterpriseBench: CoreCraft
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.
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.
- 77.4 Claude Fable 5.1
- 74.4 Claude Opus 5.5
- 71.8
Inkling 2 Small
- 70.8 Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 70.3 Claude Fable 5
- 68.7 Claude Opus 5
- 68.2 Grok 4.7
- 66.1 Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 65.6 Grok 4.6
- 64.6
Tencent Hy4 preview
- 61.9
Muse Spark 1.3
- 61.5
Muse Wonder
- 58.5
Gemini 3.8 Flash
- 58.5
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
- 57.4
Qwen3.8 Flash
- 55.9
Gemini 3.7 Flash
- 53.3
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 52.3 Claude Opus 4.8
- 51.8 Muse Glimmer 30B
- 51.8 GLM-5.3
- 51.3 GPT-5.5
- 51.3 Claude Sonnet 5
- 50.8
Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 50.3 GPT-6.1 Sol
- 49.2 Beam 1.0
- 47.7
Mistral Large 4
- 46.7 GLM-5.3-Flash
- 46.2 GPT-5.6 Sol
- 45.6 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (experimental)
- 43.1 Kimi K3
- 43.1 GPT-6 Luna
- 43.1 GPT-6 Sol
- 42.6 GPT-5.2
- 42.6 GPT-6 Astra
- 41.5
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 41.0
Tencent Hy3
- 39.5
Gemini 3.6 Flash
- 36.4 GPT-5.4
- 35.9 Claude Opus 4.7
- 30.8 Claude Opus 4.6
- 27.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 26.2
Qwen3.7-Max
- 24.6 Kimi K2.6
- 24.1
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 20.5 Grok 4.1 Fast
- 20.1 GPT-5.2 Codex
- 20.0
Gemini 3 Flash
- 17.4 GLM-5
- 14.4
Gemini 3 Pro
- 11.3
Qwen3.5-Plus
- 10.3 Nemotron Lightning 3.5 30B A3B
- 8.90 Nova 2 Pro
- 8.70 Kimi K2.5
- 3.60
Qwen3-Max
- 3.60
Mistral Large 3
- 1 Claude Fable 5.1 adaptive/max 77.4%
- 2 Claude Opus 5.5 adaptive/max 74.4%
- 3
Inkling 2 Small xhigh 71.8%
- 4 Claude Sonnet 5.5 adaptive/max 70.8%
- 5 Claude Fable 5 adaptive/max 70.3%
- 6 Claude Opus 5 adaptive/max 68.7%
- 7 Grok 4.7 xhigh 68.2%
- 8 Kimi K3.1 Pro max 66.1%
- 9 Grok 4.6 xhigh 65.6%
- 10
Tencent Hy4 preview high 64.6%
- 11
Muse Spark 1.3 xhigh 61.9%
- 12
Muse Wonder max 61.5%
- 13
Gemini 3.8 Flash high 58.5%
- 14
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 max 58.5%
- 15
Qwen3.8 Flash xhigh 57.4%
- 16
Gemini 3.7 Flash high 55.9%
- 17
DeepSeek-V4-Pro max 53.3%
- 18 Claude Opus 4.8 adaptive/max 52.3%
- 19 Muse Glimmer 30B xhigh 51.8%
- 20 GLM-5.3 max 51.8%
- 21 GPT-5.5 xhigh 51.3%
- 22 Claude Sonnet 5 adaptive/max 51.3%
- 23
Gemini 3.5 Flash high 50.8%
- 24 GPT-6.1 Sol max 50.3%
- 25 Beam 1.0 max 49.2%
- 26
Mistral Large 4 high 47.7%
- 27 GLM-5.3-Flash max 46.7%
- 28 GPT-5.6 Sol max 46.2%
- 29 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (experimental) max 45.6%
- 30 Kimi K3 max 43.1%
- 31 GPT-6 Luna max 43.1%
- 32 GPT-6 Sol max 43.1%
- 33 GPT-5.2 xhigh 42.6%
- 34 GPT-6 Astra max 42.6%
- 35
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash max 41.5%
- 36
Tencent Hy3 high 41%
- 37
Gemini 3.6 Flash high 39.5%
- 38 GPT-5.4 xhigh 36.4%
- 39 Claude Opus 4.7 adaptive/max 35.9%
- 40 Claude Opus 4.6 adaptive/max 30.8%
- 41
Gemini 3.1 Pro high 27.2%
- 42
Qwen3.7-Max thinking on 26.2%
- 43 Kimi K2.6 thinking on 24.6%
- 44
DeepSeek-V3.2 high 24.1%
- 45 Grok 4.1 Fast 20.5%
- 46 GPT-5.2 Codex xhigh 20.1%
- 47
Gemini 3 Flash high 20%
- 48 GLM-5 auto 17.4%
- 49
Gemini 3 Pro high 14.4%
- 50
Qwen3.5-Plus thinking on 11.3%
- 51 Nemotron Lightning 3.5 30B A3B thinking on 10.3%
- 52 Nova 2 Pro high 8.90%
- 53 Kimi K2.5 thinking on 8.70%
- 54
Qwen3-Max thinking on 3.60%
- 55
Mistral Large 3 3.60%
Source: Official EnterpriseBench: CoreCraft leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | | 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 | | 64.6% | high | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 61.9% | xhigh | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 61.5% | max | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 58.5% | high | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 58.5% | max | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 57.4% | xhigh | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | | 55.9% | high | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 41.5% | max | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 36 | | 41% | high | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 37 | | 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 | | 27.2% | high | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 42 | | 26.2% | thinking on | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 43 | Kimi K2.6 | 24.6% | thinking on | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 44 | | 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 | | 20% | high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 48 | GLM-5 | 17.4% | auto | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 49 | | 14.4% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 50 | | 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 | | 3.60% | thinking on | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 55 | | 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.
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.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 2026 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| | 71.8% EnterpriseBench-CoreCraft | 71.8% Leaderboard, xhigh | Same |
More 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%