Benchmark Almanac

FrontierFinance

Samaya Sterling 58.9% tops its leaderboard Claude Fable 5.1 55.9% leads the models we track
Step 5 Preview 66.4% leads since September 2026
In use

Agents answer 220 investment research queries from finance experts across six use cases of the investor workflow. Three judge models check each answer against 11,543 source-attributed rubrics.

The score is the rubric qualification rate, macro-averaged over queries. Results are reported per harness: web search only, the open Finance Agent v2 harness, and Samaya in-house harness.

Made by
Samaya AI
Released
July 2026
Kind
Finance
Level
Expert
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 5.5 #4 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
October 2026
Last model added
October 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

AI agents are increasingly deployed for professional investment research, yet no benchmark captures the complexity of the full investor workflow. Existing benchmarks mainly target financial data extraction, a narrow slice that current models have largely saturated, while reference-based metrics and generic LLM-as-a-judge scoring fall short on the open-ended, long-form answers that real analyst queries demand. We introduce FrontierFinance, a fully open benchmark of 220 expert-crafted queries and 11,543 source-attributed rubrics spanning six crucial use cases across the full investor workflow. FrontierFinance is both broader and harder than existing public finance benchmarks. Evaluating frontier models and agent systems under a common harness restricted to publicly available data, we find that the tool harness, not the model alone, strongly shapes quality and efficiency; that Samaya's in-house system leads at 56.0%, ahead of the strongest frontier model (Claude Fable 5, 49.2%) at roughly 2.2x lower cost; and that the best open-weight model (Kimi K3, 46.4%) nearly matches the best proprietary model at 4.5x lower cost. Screening & Discovery and Sector, Industry & Macro remain the hardest use cases across all systems, where even the best systems reach only 33% and 39%. We make the dataset and grading code publicly available.

Abstract of FrontierFinance: A Challenging Benchmark for Measuring Frontier Intelligence of Finance Agents (arXiv:2608.11683, CC0)
20
Entries on its own leaderboard, 17 models we track
2
Launch posts list it, from 2 labs

Samaya Sterling tops the leaderboard with 58.9%

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. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders. The best model we track is Claude Fable 5.1, at 55.9%.

Step 5 Preview leads with 66.4%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

  1. 1 Samaya Sterling 58.9%
  2. 2 Legacy Samaya System (high effort) 56%
  3. 3 Claude Fable 5.1 high 55.9%
  4. 4 Muse Spark Open xhigh 53.7%
  5. 5 Legacy Samaya System 52.9%
  6. 6 Muse Wonder 52.6%
  7. 7 Kimi K3.1 Pro max 51.7%
  8. 8 Claude Opus 5.5 high 50.9%
  9. 9 Gemini 3.8 Flash medium 50%
  10. 10 Claude Fable 5 high 49.2%
  11. 11 GPT-5.6 Sol medium 46.8%
  12. 12 Ling-3.0-flash-Fin 46.6%
  13. 13 Kimi K3 max 46.4%
  14. 14 Gemini 3.6 Flash medium 46.3%
  15. 15 Claude Opus 4.8 high 45%
  16. 16 GPT-5.5 medium 43.5%
  17. 17 GLM-5.2 max 42.8%
  18. 18 DeepSeek-V4-Pro high 40.5%
  19. 19 Kimi K2.6 on; level not supported 32.3%
  20. 20 Gemini 3.1 Pro high 30.7%

Source: Official FrontierFinance leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Samaya Sterling 58.9% Official leaderboard
2 Legacy Samaya System (high effort) 56% Official leaderboard
3 Claude Fable 5.1 55.9% high, Finance Agent v2 Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Muse Spark Open 53.7% xhigh, Finance Agent v2 Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Legacy Samaya System 52.9% Official leaderboard
6 Muse Wonder 52.6% Finance Agent v2 Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Kimi K3.1 Pro 51.7% max, Finance Agent v2 Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Opus 5.5 50.9% high, Finance Agent v2 Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Gemini 3.8 Flash 50% medium, Finance Agent v2 Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Claude Fable 5 49.2% high, Finance Agent v2 Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
11 GPT-5.6 Sol 46.8% medium, Finance Agent v2 Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Ling-3.0-flash-Fin 46.6% Finance Agent v2 Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Kimi K3 46.4% max, Finance Agent v2 Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Gemini 3.6 Flash 46.3% medium, Finance Agent v2 Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Claude Opus 4.8 45% high, Finance Agent v2 May 2026 Official leaderboard
16 GPT-5.5 43.5% medium, Finance Agent v2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
17 GLM-5.2 42.8% max, Finance Agent v2 Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
18 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 40.5% high, Finance Agent v2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
19 Kimi K2.6 32.3% on; level not supported, Finance Agent v2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
20 Gemini 3.1 Pro 30.7% high, Web Search Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Step 5 Preview 66.4% Sep 2026 Lab model card
2 Kimi K3.1 Pro 58.6% Oct 2026 Lab model card
3 Claude Fable 5.1 55.9% high, Finance Agent v2 Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Muse Spark Open 53.7% xhigh, Finance Agent v2 Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Muse Wonder 52.6% Finance Agent v2 Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Opus 5.5 50.9% high, Finance Agent v2 Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 3.8 Flash 50% medium, Finance Agent v2 Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Fable 5 49.2% high, Finance Agent v2 Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-5.6 Sol 46.8% medium, Finance Agent v2 Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Ling-3.0-flash-Fin 46.6% Finance Agent v2 Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Kimi K3 46.4% max, Finance Agent v2 Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Gemini 3.6 Flash 46.3% medium, Finance Agent v2 Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Claude Opus 4.8 45% high, Finance Agent v2 May 2026 Official leaderboard
14 GPT-5.5 43.5% medium, Finance Agent v2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
15 GLM-5.2 42.8% max, Finance Agent v2 Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
16 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 40.5% high, Finance Agent v2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Kimi K2.6 32.3% on; level not supported, Finance Agent v2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
18 Gemini 3.1 Pro 30.7% high, Web Search Feb 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 2 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Score against latency per query

The page plots the overall rubrics qualification rate against the mean latency of one query, for the top systems in each harness. 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% 20% 40% 60% 0100200300400500 Avg. latency (s), lower is better Score Gemini 3.1 Pro (high): Score 30.7%, avg. latency 91 s Gemini 3.1 Pro (high): Score 30.5%, avg. latency 222 s Kimi K2.6 (on; level not supported): Score 32.3%, avg. latency 201 s GPT-5.5 (medium): Score 43.5%, avg. latency 233 s GPT-5.5 (medium): Score 20.7%, avg. latency 192 s DeepSeek-V4-Pro (high): Score 40.5%, avg. latency 203 s Claude Opus 4.8 (high): Score 45%, avg. latency 156 s Claude Fable 5 (high): Score 49.2%, avg. latency 165 s GLM-5.2 (max): Score 42.8%, avg. latency 297 s GPT-5.6 Sol (medium): Score 46.8%, avg. latency 171 s Kimi K3 (max): Score 46.4%, avg. latency 336 s Gemini 3.6 Flash (medium): Score 46.3%, avg. latency 164 s Gemini 3.8 Flash (medium): Score 50%, avg. latency 247 s Ling-3.0-flash-Fin: Score 46.6%, avg. latency 318 s Muse Wonder: Score 52.6%, avg. latency 292 s Kimi K3.1 Pro (max): Score 51.7%, avg. latency 449 s Claude Opus 4.8 (high): Score 33%, avg. latency 54 s Claude Fable 5.1 (high): Score 55.9%, avg. latency 268 s Claude Opus 5.5 (high): Score 50.9%, avg. latency 148 s Muse Spark Open (xhigh): Score 53.7%, avg. latency 234 s Samaya Sterling: Score 58.9%, avg. latency 282 s. Not in our model list Legacy Samaya System (high effort): Score 56%, avg. latency 278 s. Not in our model list Legacy Samaya System: Score 52.9%, avg. latency 214 s. Not in our model list Samaya SterlingLegacy Samaya System (high effort)Claude Fable 5.1 (high)Muse Spark Open (xhigh)Legacy Samaya SystemClaude Opus 5.5 (high)Claude Opus 4.8 (high) 0% 20% 40% 60% 0100200300400500 Avg. latency (s), lower is better Score Gemini 3.1 Pro (high): Score 30.7%, avg. latency 91 s Gemini 3.1 Pro (high): Score 30.5%, avg. latency 222 s Kimi K2.6 (on; level not supported): Score 32.3%, avg. latency 201 s GPT-5.5 (medium): Score 43.5%, avg. latency 233 s GPT-5.5 (medium): Score 20.7%, avg. latency 192 s DeepSeek-V4-Pro (high): Score 40.5%, avg. latency 203 s Claude Opus 4.8 (high): Score 45%, avg. latency 156 s Claude Fable 5 (high): Score 49.2%, avg. latency 165 s GLM-5.2 (max): Score 42.8%, avg. latency 297 s GPT-5.6 Sol (medium): Score 46.8%, avg. latency 171 s Kimi K3 (max): Score 46.4%, avg. latency 336 s Gemini 3.6 Flash (medium): Score 46.3%, avg. latency 164 s Gemini 3.8 Flash (medium): Score 50%, avg. latency 247 s Ling-3.0-flash-Fin: Score 46.6%, avg. latency 318 s Muse Wonder: Score 52.6%, avg. latency 292 s Kimi K3.1 Pro (max): Score 51.7%, avg. latency 449 s Claude Opus 4.8 (high): Score 33%, avg. latency 54 s Claude Fable 5.1 (high): Score 55.9%, avg. latency 268 s Claude Opus 5.5 (high): Score 50.9%, avg. latency 148 s Muse Spark Open (xhigh): Score 53.7%, avg. latency 234 s Samaya Sterling: Score 58.9%, avg. latency 282 s. Not in our model list Legacy Samaya System (high effort): Score 56%, avg. latency 278 s. Not in our model list Legacy Samaya System: Score 52.9%, avg. latency 214 s. Not in our model list Samaya SterlingLegacy Samaya System (high effort)Claude Fable 5.1 (high)Muse Spark Open (xhigh)Legacy Samaya SystemClaude Opus 5.5 (high)Claude Opus 4.8 (high)
ModelSettingScoreAvg. latency
Samaya Sterling 58.9% 282 s
Legacy Samaya System (high effort) 56% 278 s
Claude Fable 5.1 high, Finance Agent v2 55.9% 268 s
Muse Spark Open xhigh, Finance Agent v2 53.7% 234 s
Legacy Samaya System 52.9% 214 s
Muse Wonder Finance Agent v2 52.6% 292 s
Kimi K3.1 Pro max, Finance Agent v2 51.7% 449 s
Claude Opus 5.5 high, Finance Agent v2 50.9% 148 s
Gemini 3.8 Flash medium, Finance Agent v2 50% 247 s
Claude Fable 5 high, Finance Agent v2 49.2% 165 s
GPT-5.6 Sol medium, Finance Agent v2 46.8% 171 s
Ling-3.0-flash-Fin Finance Agent v2 46.6% 318 s
Kimi K3 max, Finance Agent v2 46.4% 336 s
Gemini 3.6 Flash medium, Finance Agent v2 46.3% 164 s
Claude Opus 4.8 high, Finance Agent v2 45% 156 s
GPT-5.5 medium, Finance Agent v2 43.5% 233 s
GLM-5.2 max, Finance Agent v2 42.8% 297 s
DeepSeek-V4-Pro high, Finance Agent v2 40.5% 203 s
Claude Opus 4.8 high, Web Search 33% 54 s
Kimi K2.6 on; level not supported, Finance Agent v2 32.3% 201 s
Gemini 3.1 Pro high, Web Search 30.7% 91 s
Gemini 3.1 Pro high, Finance Agent v2 30.5% 222 s
GPT-5.5 medium, Web Search 20.7% 192 s

The best score, 55.9%, costs $6.89 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. Muse Spark Open at xhigh comes within 2.2 points of the best for $1.38 a task, 5 times cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

Anthropic Google DeepMind Ant Group Meta Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 20% 40% 60% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Fable 5.1, high Muse Spark Open, xhigh Gemini 3.8 Flash, medium Ling-3.0-flash-Fin 0% 20% 40% 60% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Fable 5.1, high Gemini 3.8 Flash, medium

Source: Official FrontierFinance leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Fable 5.1 high Finance Agent v2 55.9% $6.89
Muse Spark Open xhigh Finance Agent v2 53.7% $1.38
Muse Wonder Finance Agent v2 52.6% $3.35
Kimi K3.1 Pro max Finance Agent v2 51.7% $1.56
Claude Opus 5.5 high Finance Agent v2 50.9% $1.87
Gemini 3.8 Flash medium Finance Agent v2 50% $1.21
Claude Fable 5 high Finance Agent v2 49.2% $4.06
GPT-5.6 Sol medium Finance Agent v2 46.8% $3.03
Ling-3.0-flash-Fin Finance Agent v2 46.6% $0.05
Kimi K3 max Finance Agent v2 46.4% $0.90
Gemini 3.6 Flash medium Finance Agent v2 46.3% $2.41
Claude Opus 4.8 high Finance Agent v2 45% $2.61
GPT-5.5 medium Finance Agent v2 43.5% $2.80
GLM-5.2 max Finance Agent v2 42.8% $0.63
DeepSeek-V4-Pro high Finance Agent v2 40.5% $0.68
Claude Opus 4.8 high Web Search 33% $1.47
Kimi K2.6 on; level not supported Finance Agent v2 32.3% $0.95
Gemini 3.1 Pro high Web Search 30.7% $0.24
Gemini 3.1 Pro high Finance Agent v2 30.5% $1.72
GPT-5.5 medium Web Search 20.7% $0.55

2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in July 2026 3 models have held number one with claims included since its release in July 2026

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

Anthropic
Own leaderboard 2 leaders

Source: Official FrontierFinance 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%) Step 5 Preview Claude Fable 5.1 Claude Fable 5 Claude Opus 4.8 Kimi K2.6 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Step 5 Preview Claude Fable 5.1

Sources: Official FrontierFinance leaderboard and labs’ model cards

2 labs 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.

StepFun
Moonshot AI
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Oct 24, 2026 Kimi K3.1 Pro 58.6 Frontier Finance
Sep 20, 2026 Step 5 Preview 66.4 FrontierFinance

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. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
Kimi K3.1 Pro 58.6% Frontier Finance 51.7% Leaderboard, max, Finance Agent v2 +6.9 pts

More in Law, finance and medicine

All 179 in Law, finance and medicine
  • MedXpertQA-MM In use Models answer expert-level medical exam questions that combine images with clinical records and test results. Scoring is accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 80.4%
  • HealthBench Professional In use 525 physician-authored tasks from real clinician chats (care consult, documentation, research) with physician-adjudicated rubrics. Claude Sonnet 5.5 69.2%
  • HealthBench In use 5,000 realistic health conversations graded against physician-written rubrics. A length-adjusted variant penalizes verbosity. GPT-5 67.2%
  • FinSearchComp In use Agents search the web to fetch live financial data, look up history, and run multi-step investigations, across 635 expert-written questions. Scored by answer accuracy. Ling-3.1-flash 81.7%
  • KBL In use Models answer Korean legal knowledge and reasoning tasks and Korean bar exam questions. It has 7 knowledge tasks, 4 reasoning tasks and 2,510 bar exam items. Solar Pro 4 77.5%
  • KorMedMCQA In use Models answer 7,469 multiple-choice questions from Korean licensing exams for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists, held from 2012 to 2024. Solar Pro 4 93.2%