Benchmark Almanac

LAB-Bench

Grok 4.6 80.7% leads since August 2026
Claude 3 Haiku 35.2% leads since July 2024
Grok 4.6 80.7% leads since August 2026
Only in system cards

Multiple-choice tasks on practical biology research skills: literature, protocols, sequence and figure reasoning, database lookup.

2,457 multiple-choice questions in eight subtasks. 1,967 public on Hugging Face, 489 held back by FutureHouse. Superseded by LABBench2 in 2026.

Made by
FutureHouse
Released
July 2024
Kind
Genomics and life sciences
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
Public, plus a private test set
Strongest model tested
Grok 4.6 #28 on the capability index
Last in a system card
September 2026
Last model added
September 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)
3
Models scored in lab cards
4
System cards report it, from 2 labs

Grok 4.6 leads with 80.7% among models released by September 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 Haiku leads with 35.2% 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.

Grok 4.6 leads with 80.7%, 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 September 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 Grok 4.6 80.7%
  2. 2 Grok 4.7 76.8%
  3. 3 Grok 4.5 71.1%

Source: Labs’ model cards

Source: Official LAB-Bench leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Grok 4.6 80.7% Aug 2026 Lab model card
2 Grok 4.7 76.8% Sep 2026 Lab model card
3 Grok 4.5 71.1% Jul 2026 Lab model card
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude 3 Haiku 35.2% Mar 2024 Official leaderboard
2 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 35.1% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
3 Claude 3 Opus 29.6% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Grok 4.6 80.7% Aug 2026 Lab model card
2 Grok 4.7 76.8% Sep 2026 Lab model card
3 Grok 4.5 71.1% Jul 2026 Lab model card
4 Claude 3 Haiku 35.2% Mar 2024 Official leaderboard
5 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 35.1% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
6 Claude 3 Opus 29.6% Feb 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.

2 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in July 2024 Number one over time 3 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 Not tested since Sep 2026
Grok 4.6 80.7%

Sources: Official LAB-Bench 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%) Grok 4.6 Grok 4.5 Claude 3 Haiku Claude 3 Opus 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Grok 4.6 Grok 4.5

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

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

4 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
Sep 21, 2026 Grok 4.7 model card 76.8 LAB-Bench practical MCQ, accuracy, high (7.6) Bio and chem risk
Aug 12, 2026 Grok 4.6 model card 80.7 LAB-Bench practical MCQ, accuracy, high (8.5) Bio and chem risk
Jul 14, 2026 Grok 4.5 model card 71.1 LAB-Bench practical MCQ, accuracy, high (8.3) Bio and chem risk
Oct 8, 2025 Code World Model (CWM) technical report LAB-Bench ProtocolQA, LitQA, LitQA with tools, SeqQA, SeqQA with tools, chart without printed numbers (Figure 1) Bio and chem risk

Versions

More in Biology and chemistry

All 110 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%