Benchmark Almanac

LAB-Bench FigQA

Claude Opus 4.8 80.4% leads since May 2026
Claude 3.5 Sonnet 46% leads since July 2024
Claude Opus 4.8 80.4% leads since May 2026
Fading

Models interpret figures from biology papers and answer multiple-choice questions. FigQA subset of LAB-Bench.

Anthropic reports LAB-Bench subsets separately in its RSP bio sections.

Made by
FutureHouse
Released
July 2024
Kind
Genomics and life sciences
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 4.8 #21 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
March 2026, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
June 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

There is widespread optimism that frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) and LLM-augmented systems have the potential to rapidly accelerate scientific discovery across disciplines. Today, many benchmarks exist to measure LLM knowledge and reasoning on textbook-style science questions, but few if any benchmarks are designed to evaluate language model performance on practical tasks required for scientific research, such as literature search, protocol planning, and data analysis. As a step toward building such benchmarks, we introduce the Language Agent Biology Benchmark (LAB-Bench), a broad dataset of over 2,400 multiple choice questions for evaluating AI systems on a range of practical biology research capabilities, including recall and reasoning over literature, interpretation of figures, access and navigation of databases, and comprehension and manipulation of DNA and protein sequences. Importantly, in contrast to previous scientific benchmarks, we expect that an AI system that can achieve consistently high scores on the more difficult LAB-Bench tasks would serve as a useful assistant for researchers in areas such as literature search and molecular cloning. As an initial assessment of the emergent scientific task capabilities of frontier language models, we measure performance of several against our benchmark and report results compared to human expert biology researchers. We will continue to update and expand LAB-Bench over time, and expect it to serve as a useful tool in the development of automated research systems going forward. A public subset of LAB-Bench is available for use at the following URL: https://huggingface.co/datasets/futurehouse/lab-bench

Abstract of LAB-Bench: Measuring Capabilities of Language Models for Biology Research (arXiv:2407.10362, CC0)
11
Models scored in lab cards
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
15
System cards report it, from 2 labs

Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 80.4% among models released by May 2026

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads with 46% across all independent runs

Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.

Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 80.4%, 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.

The newest model with a score here came out in May 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.8 80.4%
  2. 2 Claude Mythos Preview 79.7%
  3. 3 Claude Opus 4.7 78.6%
  4. 4 Grok 4.20 66%
  5. 5 Claude Sonnet 4.6 58.8%
  6. 6 Claude Opus 4.6 58%
  7. 7 Claude Opus 4.5 54.9%
  8. 8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 49.7%
  9. 9 Claude Haiku 4.5 49%
  10. 10 Claude Opus 4.1 46%
  11. 11 Grok 4.1 34%

Source: Labs’ model cards

Source: Official LAB-Bench FigQA leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.8 80.4% May 2026 Lab model card
2 Claude Mythos Preview 79.7% Apr 2026 Lab model card
3 Claude Opus 4.7 78.6% Apr 2026 Lab model card
4 Grok 4.20 66% Mar 2026 Lab model card
5 Claude Sonnet 4.6 58.8% Feb 2026 Lab model card
6 Claude Opus 4.6 58% Feb 2026 Lab model card
7 Claude Opus 4.5 54.9% Nov 2025 Lab model card
8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 49.7% Sep 2025 Lab model card
9 Claude Haiku 4.5 49% Oct 2025 Lab model card
10 Claude Opus 4.1 46% Aug 2025 Lab model card
11 Grok 4.1 34% Nov 2025 Lab model card
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 46% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
2 Claude 3 Opus 24% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
3 Claude 3 Haiku 23% Mar 2024 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.8 80.4% May 2026 Lab model card
2 Claude Mythos Preview 79.7% Apr 2026 Lab model card
3 Claude Opus 4.7 78.6% Apr 2026 Lab model card
4 Grok 4.20 66% Mar 2026 Lab model card
5 Claude Sonnet 4.6 58.8% Feb 2026 Lab model card
6 Claude Opus 4.6 58% Feb 2026 Lab model card
7 Claude Opus 4.5 54.9% Nov 2025 Lab model card
8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 49.7% Sep 2025 Lab model card
9 Claude Haiku 4.5 49% Oct 2025 Lab model card
10 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 46% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Opus 4.1 46% Aug 2025 Lab model card
12 Grok 4.1 34% Nov 2025 Lab model card
13 Claude 3 Opus 24% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
14 Claude 3 Haiku 23% Mar 2024 Official leaderboard

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 7 entries, 3 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

8 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in July 2024 Number one over time 8 models have held number one with claims included since its release in July 2024

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

Anthropic xAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jul 2024
Lab claims Replaced by LABBench2 FigQA2, May 2026

Sources: Official LAB-Bench FigQA leaderboard and labs’ model cards

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% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.8 Grok 4.20 Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 Claude 3.5 Sonnet Claude 3 Opus 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.8 Grok 4.20

Sources: Official LAB-Bench FigQA leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Labs headline it less often now, last in March 2026

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.

xAI
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Mar 9, 2026 Grok 4.20 66 FigQA, accuracy 0.66, Grok 4.2 SA, Table 4

15 system cards report it, from 2 labs

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Jun 9, 2026 Claude Fable 5 system card LAB-Bench FigQA, the card says Fable 5 showed a degradation because its bio-safeguard classifiers flag biology figures, no Fable 5 number printed (8.16.7) Capabilities
May 28, 2026 Claude Opus 4.8 system card 80.4 LAB-Bench FigQA, 181 public questions, no tools, max effort, five runs, new grader (87.3% with Python tools) (8.12.3) Capabilities
Apr 16, 2026 Claude Opus 4.7 system card 78.6 LAB-Bench FigQA, adaptive thinking at max effort, no tools. 86.4 with Python tools (8.9.1) Capabilities
Apr 7, 2026 Grok 4.20 model card 66 FigQA, accuracy 0.66, Grok 4.2 SA, Table 4 Safety
Apr 7, 2026 Claude Mythos Preview system card 79.7 LAB-Bench FigQA, adaptive thinking, max effort, no tools, average of five runs (6.11.1); 89.0 with Python tools Capabilities
Feb 17, 2026 Claude Sonnet 4.6 system card 58.8 LAB-Bench FigQA, adaptive thinking, max effort, no tools; 77.1 with an image cropping tool (2.17.1) Capabilities
Feb 5, 2026 Claude Opus 4.6 system card 58 LAB-Bench FigQA, adaptive thinking, max effort, no tools, average of five runs (2.19.1); 78.3 with an image cropping tool Capabilities
Nov 24, 2025 Claude Opus 4.5 system card 54.9 LAB-Bench FigQA, no tools, extended thinking off, 0-shot (2.21; 69.2% with image cropping tool and 32,768 reasoning tokens, 0.6924 in 7.2.4.4) Capabilities
Nov 17, 2025 Grok 4.1 model card 34 FigQA, accuracy 0.34, Grok 4.1 Thinking (Table 4) Bio and chem risk
Oct 15, 2025 Claude Haiku 4.5 system card 49 LAB-Bench FigQA, k-shots=10, score 0.49 (6.2.3.1) Bio and chem risk
Sep 29, 2025 Claude Sonnet 4.5 system card 49.7 LAB-Bench FigQA (Figure QA), 10-shot, no tools, score 0.497 (Figure 9.2.4.4.A) Bio and chem risk
Aug 5, 2025 Claude Opus 4.1 system card addendum 46 LAB-Bench subset FigQA 0.46 (6.3.1.2) Bio and chem risk
May 22, 2025 Claude Sonnet 4 system card LAB-Bench FigQA, 0, 5 and 10 shots, extended thinking, chart without printed values (Figure 7.2.4.7.A) Bio and chem risk
May 22, 2025 Claude Opus 4 system card LAB-Bench FigQA, 0, 5 and 10 shots, extended thinking, chart without printed values (Figure 7.2.4.7.A) Bio and chem risk
Feb 24, 2025 Claude 3.7 Sonnet system card LabBench subset FigQA, 0 and 5 shots with Bo1 to Bo10, 32k thinking, chart without printed values (Figures 18 and 19) Bio and chem risk

Versions

We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.

Anthropic xAI OpenAI
LABBench2 FigQA2 Not tested since Feb 2026
GPT-5.2 42.6%
LAB-Bench FigQA Replaced by LABBench2 FigQA2, May 2026
LABBench2 FigQA2 Not tested since Feb 2026
GPT-5.2 42.6%

Sources: Official leaderboards and labs’ model cards

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%