FrontierBioML
25 machine learning tasks in computational biology, across antibody development, protein engineering, structural biology, binder design and functional genomics. An agent gets real experimental data and a brief, works offline for up to six hours and submits a prediction script. A sealed grader runs the script on held-out data, such as new antibody families or new protein targets, and scores each task from 0 at a simple baseline to 100 for a perfect answer.
Each model runs in a coding harness such as Claude Code, Codex CLI or OpenCode, three times per task. Runs that fail a check or that a provider's safety filter blocks count as 0. OpenAI's biosafety filter blocked 36 of 150 GPT runs because Valen is not in OpenAI's trusted access program. Both Claude models ran under Anthropic's Life Science Verification Program. Scores are not comparable across tasks. The tasks use public datasets, and Valen reports that one model named a dataset's source from memory. Four tasks are public on Harbor and the Prime Intellect Environments Hub. The other 21 are available on request.
- Made by
- Valen Labs
- Released
- November 2026
- Kind
- Genomics and life sciences
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- Public, plus a private test set
- Strongest model tested
-
Gemini 4 Carbon #2 on the capability index
- Last model added
- November 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 14th, 2026
Claude Mythos 5.2 leads with 40.3
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 14th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart.
- 1 Claude Mythos 5.2 max effort 40.3
- 2
Gemini 4 Carbon high effort 39.0
- 3
Gemini 4 Argon high effort 36.8
- 4 Claude Opus 5.5 max effort 36.5
- 5 GPT-6.1 Sol max effort 29.1
- 6 GPT-6 Astra max effort 28.8
- 7
Muse Wonder max effort 26.9
- 8 Kimi K3.1 Pro max effort 25.8
- 9 Grok 4.7 xhigh effort 24.0
- 10
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash max effort 22.4
- 11
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL reasoning on 11.0
Source: Official FrontierBioML leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Mythos 5.2 | 40.3 | max effort, Claude Code | Nov 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 39.0 | high effort, OpenCode | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 36.8 | high effort, OpenCode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 36.5 | max effort, Claude Code | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | GPT-6.1 Sol | 29.1 | max effort, Codex CLI | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | GPT-6 Astra | 28.8 | max effort, Codex CLI (Azure) | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 26.9 | max effort, OpenCode | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | 25.8 | max effort, OpenCode | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | Grok 4.7 | 24.0 | xhigh effort, OpenCode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 22.4 | max effort, OpenCode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 11.0 | reasoning on, OpenCode (PrimeIntellect) | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Score against time
The board plots each agent’s mean score against its median minutes per run. The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.
| Model | Setting | Mean score | Median agent minutes per run |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Mythos 5.2 | max effort, Claude Code | 40.3 | 147.3 minutes |
| | high effort, OpenCode | 39 | 106.9 minutes |
| | high effort, OpenCode | 36.8 | 93.7 minutes |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | max effort, Claude Code | 36.5 | 73 minutes |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | max effort, Codex CLI | 29.1 | 26.4 minutes |
| GPT-6 Astra | max effort, Codex CLI (Azure) | 28.8 | 32.9 minutes |
| | max effort, OpenCode | 26.9 | 34.1 minutes |
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | max effort, OpenCode | 25.8 | 33.9 minutes |
| Grok 4.7 | xhigh effort, OpenCode | 24 | 39.4 minutes |
| | max effort, OpenCode | 22.4 | 89.7 minutes |
| | reasoning on, OpenCode (PrimeIntellect) | 11 | 12.3 minutes |
The best score, 40.3, costs $48 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. Gemini 4 Carbon at high effort comes within 1.3 of the best for $8.52 a task, 6 times cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
Source: Official FrontierBioML leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Mythos 5.2 | max effort | Claude Code | 40.3 | $48 | 412,480 |
| | high effort | OpenCode | 39.0 | $8.52 | 250,637 |
| | high effort | OpenCode | 36.8 | $6.71 | 166,148 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | max effort | Claude Code | 36.5 | $13 | 211,660 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | max effort | Codex CLI | 29.1 | $1.96 | 100,641 |
| GPT-6 Astra | max effort | Codex CLI (Azure) | 28.8 | $10 | 86,925 |
| | max effort | OpenCode | 26.9 | $6.38 | 64,756 |
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | max effort | OpenCode | 25.8 | $2.29 | 30,893 |
| Grok 4.7 | xhigh effort | OpenCode | 24.0 | $5.04 | 62,856 |
| | max effort | OpenCode | 22.4 | $0.21 | 73,812 |
| | reasoning on | OpenCode (PrimeIntellect) | 11.0 | $0.11 | 22,290 |
2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in November 2026
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official FrontierBioML leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official FrontierBioML 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 Biology and chemistry
- GeneBench Pro In use Agents analyze messy simulated genomics and biology datasets to estimate a decision-relevant quantity across 129 problems. Scored automatically against known answers. GPT-5.6 Sol 31.5%
- SUPERChem In use Models solve 500 expert-written chemistry reasoning problems, offered in multimodal and text-only forms. Expert solution paths also allow a reasoning path score.
Tencent Hy4 preview 66.4%
- LifeSciBench In use Models complete 750 expert-written life science research tasks, often with attached figures, tables, or sequence files. Graded against expert rubrics as score and pass rate. GPT-Rosalind-6 61.3%
- MedChemBench (OpenAI) In use Models answer chemistry questions from an OpenAI internal set, grouped with OpenAI's life science research evaluations. OpenAI has not published the task format. GPT-Rosalind-6 49.6%
- ProtocolQA Open-Ended In use Models correct errors in published lab protocols using open-ended questions adapted from LAB-Bench ProtocolQA. Scored as pass@1. GPT-6 Cyber 47.2%
- MolecularIQ In use Models answer questions about molecular graphs, such as counting, indexing and constrained generation, and a symbolic checker verifies each answer. gpt-oss-120b 47.5%