Benchmark Almanac

FrontierBioML

Claude Mythos 5.2 40.3 leads since November 2026
Not in model cards

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
11
Models scored on its own leaderboard

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. 1 Claude Mythos 5.2 max effort 40.3
  2. 2 Gemini 4 Carbon high effort 39.0
  3. 3 Gemini 4 Argon high effort 36.8
  4. 4 Claude Opus 5.5 max effort 36.5
  5. 5 GPT-6.1 Sol max effort 29.1
  6. 6 GPT-6 Astra max effort 28.8
  7. 7 Muse Wonder max effort 26.9
  8. 8 Kimi K3.1 Pro max effort 25.8
  9. 9 Grok 4.7 xhigh effort 24.0
  10. 10 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash max effort 22.4
  11. 11 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL reasoning on 11.0

Source: Official FrontierBioML leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Mythos 5.2 40.3 max effort, Claude Code Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 4 Carbon 39.0 high effort, OpenCode Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 4 Argon 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 Muse Wonder 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 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 22.4 max effort, OpenCode Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 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.

0 10 20 30 40 50 050100150 Median agent minutes per run (minutes), lower is better Mean score GPT-6 Astra (max effort): Mean score 28.8, median agent minutes per run 32.9 minutes DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max effort): Mean score 22.4, median agent minutes per run 89.7 minutes Grok 4.7 (xhigh effort): Mean score 24, median agent minutes per run 39.4 minutes Muse Wonder (max effort): Mean score 26.9, median agent minutes per run 34.1 minutes Kimi K3.1 Pro (max effort): Mean score 25.8, median agent minutes per run 33.9 minutes Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort): Mean score 36.5, median agent minutes per run 73 minutes GPT-6.1 Sol (max effort): Mean score 29.1, median agent minutes per run 26.4 minutes Gemini 4 Argon (high effort): Mean score 36.8, median agent minutes per run 93.7 minutes Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (reasoning on): Mean score 11, median agent minutes per run 12.3 minutes Gemini 4 Carbon (high effort): Mean score 39, median agent minutes per run 107 minutes Claude Mythos 5.2 (max effort): Mean score 40.3, median agent minutes per run 147 minutes Claude Mythos 5.2 (max effort)Gemini 4 Carbon (high effort)Gemini 4 Argon (high effort)Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort)GPT-6.1 Sol (max effort)Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (reasoning on) 0 10 20 30 40 50 050100150 Median agent minutes per run (minutes), lower is better Mean score GPT-6 Astra (max effort): Mean score 28.8, median agent minutes per run 32.9 minutes DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max effort): Mean score 22.4, median agent minutes per run 89.7 minutes Grok 4.7 (xhigh effort): Mean score 24, median agent minutes per run 39.4 minutes Muse Wonder (max effort): Mean score 26.9, median agent minutes per run 34.1 minutes Kimi K3.1 Pro (max effort): Mean score 25.8, median agent minutes per run 33.9 minutes Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort): Mean score 36.5, median agent minutes per run 73 minutes GPT-6.1 Sol (max effort): Mean score 29.1, median agent minutes per run 26.4 minutes Gemini 4 Argon (high effort): Mean score 36.8, median agent minutes per run 93.7 minutes Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (reasoning on): Mean score 11, median agent minutes per run 12.3 minutes Gemini 4 Carbon (high effort): Mean score 39, median agent minutes per run 107 minutes Claude Mythos 5.2 (max effort): Mean score 40.3, median agent minutes per run 147 minutes Claude Mythos 5.2 (max effort)Gemini 4 Carbon (high effort)Gemini 4 Argon (high effort)Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort)GPT-6.1 Sol (max effort)Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (reasoning on)
ModelSettingMean scoreMedian agent minutes per run
Claude Mythos 5.2 max effort, Claude Code 40.3 147.3 minutes
Gemini 4 Carbon high effort, OpenCode 39 106.9 minutes
Gemini 4 Argon 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
Muse Wonder 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
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash max effort, OpenCode 22.4 89.7 minutes
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 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.

DeepSeek OpenAI Google DeepMind NVIDIA Anthropic Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0.00 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Mythos 5.2, max effort Gemini 4 Carbon, high effort Gemini 4 Argon, high effort GPT-6.1 Sol, max effort DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, max effort Nemotron 3.5 Super VL, reasoning on 0.00 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Mythos 5.2, max effort Gemini 4 Argon, high effort

Source: Official FrontierBioML leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Mythos 5.2 max effort Claude Code 40.3 $48 412,480
Gemini 4 Carbon high effort OpenCode 39.0 $8.52 250,637
Gemini 4 Argon 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
Muse Wonder 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
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash max effort OpenCode 22.4 $0.21 73,812
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 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.

Google DeepMind Anthropic
Own leaderboard 2 leaders
Claude Mythos 5.2 40.3

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.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard
10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 2027 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 2027

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

All 109 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%