Benchmark Almanac

LiveBench

Claude Fable 5.2 84.9% leads since November 2026
Claude Fable 5.2 84.9% leads since November 2026
Dropped

Models answer monthly refreshed questions across math, coding, reasoning, language, instruction following, and data analysis. Scored automatically against objective ground truth.

A rolling benchmark that refreshes questions by dated release, and scores are tied to a release. The newest questions are withheld from the public set. Releases since 2025 added agentic coding (May 30th, 2025), refreshed tasks (November 25th, 2025) and added tasks on December 23rd, 2025 and January 8th, 2026.

Made by
Abacus.AI, NYU, NVIDIA, et al.
Released
June 2024
Kind
Other
Level
University
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
Public, plus a private test set
Strongest model tested
Claude Fable 5.2 #1 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
September 2025, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
November 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Test set contamination, wherein test data from a benchmark ends up in a newer model's training set, is a well-documented obstacle for fair LLM evaluation and can quickly render benchmarks obsolete. To mitigate this, many recent benchmarks crowdsource new prompts and evaluations from human or LLM judges; however, these can introduce significant biases, and break down when scoring hard questions. In this work, we introduce a new benchmark for LLMs designed to be resistant to both test set contamination and the pitfalls of LLM judging and human crowdsourcing. We release LiveBench, the first benchmark that (1) contains frequently-updated questions from recent information sources, (2) scores answers automatically according to objective ground-truth values, and (3) contains a wide variety of challenging tasks, spanning math, coding, reasoning, language, instruction following, and data analysis. To achieve this, LiveBench contains questions that are based on recently-released math competitions, arXiv papers, news articles, and datasets, and it contains harder, contamination-limited versions of tasks from previous benchmarks such as Big-Bench Hard, AMPS, and IFEval. We evaluate many prominent closed-source models, as well as dozens of open-source models ranging from 0.5B to 405B in size. LiveBench is difficult, with top models achieving below 70% accuracy. We release all questions, code, and model answers. Questions are added and updated on a monthly basis, and we release new tasks and harder versions of tasks over time so that LiveBench can distinguish between the capabilities of LLMs as they improve in the future. We welcome community engagement and collaboration for expanding the benchmark tasks and models.

Abstract of LiveBench: A Challenging, Contamination-Limited LLM Benchmark (arXiv:2406.19314, CC0)
35
Entries on its own leaderboard, 31 models we track
16
Launch posts list it, from 7 labs
23
System cards report it, from 6 labs

Claude Fable 5.2 leads with 84.9%

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.

Claude Fable 5.2 leads with 84.9%, 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 Claude Fable 5.2 xhigh 84.9%
  2. 2 GPT-6 Astra max 84.5%
  3. 3 Claude Fable 5.1 max 84%
  4. 4 Gemini 4 Carbon high 83.5%
  5. 5 Claude Opus 5.5 max 83.4%
  6. 6 GPT-6.1 Sol max 81.4%
  7. 7 GPT-6.1 Terra max 78.8%
  8. 8 Gemini 4 Argon high 77.7%
  9. 9 gemini-4-hydrogen xhigh 77%
  10. 10 Claude Sonnet 5.5 max 77%
  11. 11 Muse Wonder max 70.7%
  12. 12 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 max 70.3%
  13. 13 Claude Haiku 5.5 max 68.9%
  14. 14 Kimi K3.1 Pro max 68.7%
  15. 15 Muse Spark 1.3 max 68.6%
  16. 16 Grok 4.7 xhigh 67.9%
  17. 17 GPT-5.6 Terra max 67.2%
  18. 18 MiMo-V2.6 Pro high 66.1%
  19. 19 Kimi K3 max 65%
  20. 20 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash max 63.7%
  21. 21 Grok 4.6 xhigh 63.5%
  22. 22 Qwen 3.8 Max max 60.9%
  23. 23 GLM-5.3-Flash max 60.7%
  24. 24 GPT-6 Luna max 60.4%
  25. 25 mistral-large-4-0 high 60.3%
  26. 26 Gemini 3.8 Flash high 57.3%
  27. 27 Step 5 Preview max 54.9%
  28. 28 Qwen 3.8 27B max 54%
  29. 29 Muse Spark Open max 48.5%
  30. 30 smaug-nemotron-3.5-nvfp4 max 47%
  31. 31 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL max 47%
  32. 32 Inkling 44.3%
  33. 33 nemotron-super-vl-3.5-nvfp4 max 42.3%
  34. 34 Mistral Large 4 high 40.9%
  35. 35 Gemma 4 31B IT max 32.4%

Source: Official LiveBench leaderboard

Sources: Official LiveBench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Fable 5.2 84.9% xhigh Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-6 Astra 84.5% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Fable 5.1 84% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 4 Carbon 83.5% high Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Opus 5.5 83.4% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-6.1 Sol 81.4% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-6.1 Terra 78.8% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Gemini 4 Argon 77.7% high Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
9 gemini-4-hydrogen 77% xhigh Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Claude Sonnet 5.5 77% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Muse Wonder 70.7% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
12 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 70.3% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Claude Haiku 5.5 68.9% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Kimi K3.1 Pro 68.7% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Muse Spark 1.3 68.6% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Grok 4.7 67.9% xhigh Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
17 GPT-5.6 Terra 67.2% max Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
18 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 66.1% high Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
19 Kimi K3 65% max Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
20 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 63.7% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
21 Grok 4.6 63.5% xhigh Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
22 Qwen 3.8 Max 60.9% max Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
23 GLM-5.3-Flash 60.7% max Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
24 GPT-6 Luna 60.4% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
25 mistral-large-4-0 60.3% high Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
26 Gemini 3.8 Flash 57.3% high Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
27 Step 5 Preview 54.9% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
28 Qwen 3.8 27B 54% max Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
29 Muse Spark Open 48.5% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
30 smaug-nemotron-3.5-nvfp4 47% max Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
31 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
32 Inkling 44.3% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
33 nemotron-super-vl-3.5-nvfp4 42.3% max Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
34 Mistral Large 4 40.9% high Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
35 Gemma 4 31B IT 32.4% max Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Fable 5.2 84.9% xhigh Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
2 o3-mini 84.6% Jan 2025 Lab model card
3 GPT-6 Astra 84.5% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Fable 5.1 84% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 4 Carbon 83.5% high Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Opus 5.5 83.4% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-6.1 Sol 81.4% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 79.6% Sep 2025 Lab model card
9 GPT-6.1 Terra 78.8% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025 78.4% Jul 2025 Lab model card
11 Gemini 4 Argon 77.7% high Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen3-235B-A22B 77.1% Apr 2025 Lab model card
13 Claude Sonnet 5.5 77% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
14 o1 76.6% Dec 2024 Lab model card
15 Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B 76.6% Sep 2025 Lab model card
16 Kimi K2 Jul 2025 76.4% Jul 2025 Lab model card
17 Qwen3-32B 74.9% May 2025 Lab model card
18 Qwen3-30B-A3B 74.3% May 2025 Lab model card
19 Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B 71.8% Sep 2025 Lab model card
20 Qwen3-14B 71.3% May 2025 Lab model card
21 Muse Wonder 70.7% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
22 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 70.3% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
23 STEP3-VL-10B 69.7% Jan 2026 Lab model card
24 Claude Haiku 5.5 68.9% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
25 ERNIE-4.5-300B-A47B 68.9% Jun 2025 Lab model card
26 Kimi K3.1 Pro 68.7% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
27 Muse Spark 1.3 68.6% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
28 Grok 4.7 67.9% xhigh Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
29 GPT-5.6 Terra 67.2% max Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
30 Qwen3-8B 67.1% May 2025 Lab model card
31 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 66.1% high Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
32 Kimi K3 65% max Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
33 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 63.7% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
34 Qwen3-4B 63.6% May 2025 Lab model card
35 Grok 4.6 63.5% xhigh Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
36 Hunyuan-TurboS 61% Feb 2025 Lab model card
37 Qwen 3.8 Max 60.9% max Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
38 GLM-5.3-Flash 60.7% max Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
39 GPT-6 Luna 60.4% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
40 Gemini 3.8 Flash 57.3% high Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
41 Qwen2.5-VL-72B 57% Feb 2025 Lab model card
42 Step 5 Preview 54.9% max Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
43 Qwen 3.8 27B 54% max Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
44 Qwen2.5-72B 52.3% Sep 2024 Lab model card
45 Qwen3-1.7B 51.1% May 2025 Lab model card
46 Qwen2.5-32B 50.7% Dec 2024 Lab model card
47 Muse Spark Open 48.5% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
48 Phi-4 47.6% Dec 2024 Lab model card
49 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47% max Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
50 Falcon-H1-34B 46.3% May 2025 Lab model card
51 Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct-1M 44.6% Jan 2025 Lab model card
52 Qwen2.5-14B 44.4% Dec 2024 Lab model card
53 Inkling 44.3% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
54 Qwen-Turbo 42.3% Dec 2024 Lab model card
55 Mistral Large 4 40.9% high Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
56 Qwen2.5-7B 35.9% Dec 2024 Lab model card
57 Gemma 4 31B IT 32.4% max Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
58 Qwen2.5-Omni-7B 29.6% Mar 2025 Lab model card

Labs report scores for 27 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Score vs. cost per task

Global Average against total suite cost divided by the number of tasks in those suites. 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% 80% 100% $0.01$0.1$1$10 Cost per task ($), log scale, lower is better Global Average GPT-5.6 Terra (max): Global Average 67.2%, cost per task $1.4 Inkling: Global Average 44.3%, cost per task $0.86 Kimi K3 (max): Global Average 65%, cost per task $1.41 Qwen 3.8 Max (max): Global Average 60.9%, cost per task $1.23 Grok 4.6 (xhigh): Global Average 63.5%, cost per task $1.22 Qwen 3.8 27B (max): Global Average 54%, cost per task $0.57 Claude Fable 5.1 (max): Global Average 84%, cost per task $7.02 Gemini 3.8 Flash (high): Global Average 57.3%, cost per task $0.92 Muse Spark 1.3 (max): Global Average 68.6%, cost per task $0.97 Step 5 Preview (max): Global Average 54.9%, cost per task $0.75 Grok 4.7 (xhigh): Global Average 67.9%, cost per task $2.83 Claude Opus 5.5 (max): Global Average 83.4%, cost per task $5.61 Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max): Global Average 77%, cost per task $4.47 Gemini 4 Argon (high): Global Average 77.7%, cost per task $1.42 Mistral Large 4 (high): Global Average 40.9%, cost per task $0.43 Claude Haiku 5.5 (max): Global Average 68.9%, cost per task $0.87 Muse Wonder (max): Global Average 70.7%, cost per task $1.74 Muse Spark Open (max): Global Average 48.5%, cost per task $0.55 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (max): Global Average 47%, cost per task $0.14 Kimi K3.1 Pro (max): Global Average 68.7%, cost per task $0.74 gemini-4-hydrogen (xhigh): Global Average 77%, cost per task $1.48. Not in our model list mistral-large-4-0 (high): Global Average 60.3%, cost per task $0.36. Not in our model list smaug-nemotron-3.5-nvfp4 (max): Global Average 47%, cost per task $0.08. Not in our model list Gemma 4 31B IT (max): Global Average 32.4%, cost per task $0.07 GLM-5.3-Flash (max): Global Average 60.7%, cost per task $0.11 GPT-6 Astra (max): Global Average 84.5%, cost per task $4.49 MiMo-V2.6 Pro (high): Global Average 66.1%, cost per task $0.12 GPT-6 Luna (max): Global Average 60.4%, cost per task $0.08 GPT-6.1 Sol (max): Global Average 81.4%, cost per task $0.67 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): Global Average 70.3%, cost per task $0.14 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash (max): Global Average 63.7%, cost per task $0.11 GPT-6.1 Terra (max): Global Average 78.8%, cost per task $0.53 Gemini 4 Carbon (high): Global Average 83.5%, cost per task $1.69 Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh): Global Average 84.9%, cost per task $8.36 nemotron-super-vl-3.5-nvfp4 (max): Global Average 42.3%, cost per task $0.07. Not in our model list Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh)GPT-6 Astra (max)Gemini 4 Carbon (high)GPT-6.1 Sol (max)GPT-6.1 Terra (max)DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)MiMo-V2.6 Pro (high)MiniMax-M3.1-Flash (max)GLM-5.3-Flash (max)GPT-6 Luna (max)nemotron-super-vl-3.5-nvfp4 (max)Gemma 4 31B IT (max) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% $0.01$0.1$1$10 Cost per task ($), log scale, lower is better Global Average GPT-5.6 Terra (max): Global Average 67.2%, cost per task $1.4 Inkling: Global Average 44.3%, cost per task $0.86 Kimi K3 (max): Global Average 65%, cost per task $1.41 Qwen 3.8 Max (max): Global Average 60.9%, cost per task $1.23 Grok 4.6 (xhigh): Global Average 63.5%, cost per task $1.22 Qwen 3.8 27B (max): Global Average 54%, cost per task $0.57 Claude Fable 5.1 (max): Global Average 84%, cost per task $7.02 Gemini 3.8 Flash (high): Global Average 57.3%, cost per task $0.92 Muse Spark 1.3 (max): Global Average 68.6%, cost per task $0.97 Step 5 Preview (max): Global Average 54.9%, cost per task $0.75 Grok 4.7 (xhigh): Global Average 67.9%, cost per task $2.83 Claude Opus 5.5 (max): Global Average 83.4%, cost per task $5.61 Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max): Global Average 77%, cost per task $4.47 Gemini 4 Argon (high): Global Average 77.7%, cost per task $1.42 Mistral Large 4 (high): Global Average 40.9%, cost per task $0.43 Claude Haiku 5.5 (max): Global Average 68.9%, cost per task $0.87 Muse Wonder (max): Global Average 70.7%, cost per task $1.74 Muse Spark Open (max): Global Average 48.5%, cost per task $0.55 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (max): Global Average 47%, cost per task $0.14 Kimi K3.1 Pro (max): Global Average 68.7%, cost per task $0.74 gemini-4-hydrogen (xhigh): Global Average 77%, cost per task $1.48. Not in our model list mistral-large-4-0 (high): Global Average 60.3%, cost per task $0.36. Not in our model list smaug-nemotron-3.5-nvfp4 (max): Global Average 47%, cost per task $0.08. Not in our model list Gemma 4 31B IT (max): Global Average 32.4%, cost per task $0.07 GLM-5.3-Flash (max): Global Average 60.7%, cost per task $0.11 GPT-6 Astra (max): Global Average 84.5%, cost per task $4.49 MiMo-V2.6 Pro (high): Global Average 66.1%, cost per task $0.12 GPT-6 Luna (max): Global Average 60.4%, cost per task $0.08 GPT-6.1 Sol (max): Global Average 81.4%, cost per task $0.67 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): Global Average 70.3%, cost per task $0.14 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash (max): Global Average 63.7%, cost per task $0.11 GPT-6.1 Terra (max): Global Average 78.8%, cost per task $0.53 Gemini 4 Carbon (high): Global Average 83.5%, cost per task $1.69 Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh): Global Average 84.9%, cost per task $8.36 nemotron-super-vl-3.5-nvfp4 (max): Global Average 42.3%, cost per task $0.07. Not in our model list Claude Fable 5.2 (xhigh)GPT-6 Astra (max)Gemini 4 Carbon (high)GPT-6.1 Sol (max)GPT-6.1 Terra (max)DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)MiMo-V2.6 Pro (high)MiniMax-M3.1-Flash (max)GLM-5.3-Flash (max)GPT-6 Luna (max)nemotron-super-vl-3.5-nvfp4 (max)Gemma 4 31B IT (max)
ModelSettingGlobal AverageCost per task
Claude Fable 5.2 xhigh 84.9% $8.36
GPT-6 Astra max 84.5% $4.49
Claude Fable 5.1 max 84% $7.02
Gemini 4 Carbon high 83.5% $1.69
Claude Opus 5.5 max 83.4% $5.61
GPT-6.1 Sol max 81.4% $0.67
GPT-6.1 Terra max 78.8% $0.53
Gemini 4 Argon high 77.7% $1.42
gemini-4-hydrogen xhigh 77% $1.48
Claude Sonnet 5.5 max 77% $4.47
Muse Wonder max 70.7% $1.74
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 max 70.3% $0.14
Claude Haiku 5.5 max 68.9% $0.87
Kimi K3.1 Pro max 68.7% $0.74
Muse Spark 1.3 max 68.6% $0.97
Grok 4.7 xhigh 67.9% $2.84
GPT-5.6 Terra max 67.2% $1.4
MiMo-V2.6 Pro high 66.1% $0.12
Kimi K3 max 65% $1.41
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash max 63.7% $0.11
Grok 4.6 xhigh 63.5% $1.22
Qwen 3.8 Max max 60.9% $1.23
GLM-5.3-Flash max 60.7% $0.11
GPT-6 Luna max 60.4% $0.08
mistral-large-4-0 high 60.3% $0.36
Gemini 3.8 Flash high 57.3% $0.92
Step 5 Preview max 54.9% $0.75
Qwen 3.8 27B max 54.1% $0.57
Muse Spark Open max 48.5% $0.55
smaug-nemotron-3.5-nvfp4 max 47% $0.08
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL max 47% $0.14
Inkling 44.3% $0.86
nemotron-super-vl-3.5-nvfp4 max 42.3% $0.07
Mistral Large 4 high 40.9% $0.43
Gemma 4 31B IT max 32.4% $0.07

The best score, 84.9%, costs $8.36 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. GPT-6.1 Sol at max comes within 3.5 points of the best for $0.67 a task, 12 times cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

Google DeepMind Z.ai OpenAI Xiaomi Corp DeepSeek MiniMax Anthropic Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Fable 5.2, xhigh Gemini 4 Carbon, high GPT-6.1 Terra, max DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, max MiMo-V2.6 Pro, high GLM-5.3-Flash, max Gemma 4 31B IT, max 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Fable 5.2, xhigh GPT-6.1 Terra, max

Source: Official LiveBench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Fable 5.2 xhigh 84.9% $8.36 77,858
GPT-6 Astra max 84.5% $4.49 20,591
Claude Fable 5.1 max 84% $7.02 35,773
Gemini 4 Carbon high 83.5% $1.69 55,852
Claude Opus 5.5 max 83.4% $5.61 81,559
GPT-6.1 Sol max 81.4% $0.67 20,977
GPT-6.1 Terra max 78.8% $0.53 24,682
Gemini 4 Argon high 77.7% $1.42 41,183
Claude Sonnet 5.5 max 77% $4.47 163,867
Muse Wonder max 70.7% $1.74 23,797
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 max 70.3% $0.14 51,346
Claude Haiku 5.5 max 68.9% $0.87 195,961
Kimi K3.1 Pro max 68.7% $0.74 24,865
Muse Spark 1.3 max 68.6% $0.97 44,620
Grok 4.7 xhigh 67.9% $2.83 80,242
GPT-5.6 Terra max 67.2% $1.40 25,861
MiMo-V2.6 Pro high 66.1% $0.12 50,925
Kimi K3 max 65% $1.41 27,423
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash max 63.7% $0.11 46,691
Grok 4.6 xhigh 63.5% $1.22 24,570
Qwen 3.8 Max max 60.9% $1.23 59,732
GLM-5.3-Flash max 60.7% $0.11 44,096
GPT-6 Luna max 60.4% $0.08 57,593
Gemini 3.8 Flash high 57.3% $0.92 65,310
Step 5 Preview max 54.9% $0.75 50,229
Qwen 3.8 27B max 54% $0.57 46,810
Muse Spark Open max 48.5% $0.55 18,686
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL max 47% $0.14 44,152
Inkling 44.3% $0.86 35,048
Mistral Large 4 high 40.9% $0.43 71,730
Gemma 4 31B IT max 32.4% $0.07 15,050

5 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in June 2024 4 models have held number one with claims included since its release in June 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.

Google DeepMind OpenAI Anthropic Qwen
Own leaderboard 5 leaders
Lab claims Not tested since Jan 2026
o3-mini 84.6%

Sources: Official LiveBench 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 Questions refreshed
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5.2 o3-mini o1 Qwen2.5-72B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5.2 o3-mini

Sources: Official LiveBench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

No launch post has listed it since September 2025

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.

Qwen
Microsoft
OpenAI
Tencent
Technology Innovation Institute
Baidu
Moonshot AI
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Sep 23, 2025 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B 79.6 LiveBench1125
Sep 22, 2025 Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B 71.8 LiveBench 20241125 (Thinking variant)
Sep 11, 2025 Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B 76.6 LiveBench 241125
Jul 25, 2025 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking 78.4 LiveBench 20241125
Jul 11, 2025 Kimi K2 76.4 Livebench, Pass@1
Jun 30, 2025 ERNIE-4.5-300B-A47B 68.9 LiveBench
May 20, 2025 Falcon-H1-34B 46.3 LiveBench
Apr 29, 2025 Qwen3-235B-A22B 77.1 LiveBench 2024-11-25
Mar 27, 2025 Qwen2.5-Omni-7B 29.6 LiveBench0831
Mar 6, 2025 QwQ-32B LiveBench
Feb 27, 2025 Hunyuan-TurboS 61 LiveBench
Jan 31, 2025 o3-mini 84.6 LiveBench Coding Average
Jan 28, 2025 Qwen2.5-Max LiveBench (2024-08-31)
Dec 17, 2024 o1 76.6 LiveBench (Coding)
Dec 12, 2024 Phi-4 47.6 LiveBench
Sep 19, 2024 Qwen2.5-72B 52.3 LiveBench 0831

23 system cards report it, from 6 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
Jan 14, 2026 STEP3-VL-10B technical report 69.7 LiveBench (2024-11-25), SeRe (Tables 2 and 3). PaCoRe 71.69 Capabilities
Nov 26, 2025 Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B technical report 79.6 LiveBench 2024-11-25 (Table 6) Capabilities
Sep 22, 2025 Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B technical report 71.8 LiveBench 20241125, Thinking only (Table 5) Capabilities
Jul 30, 2025 Falcon-H1-34B technical report 46.3 LiveBench global average, release not stated (Table 24) Capabilities
Jul 21, 2025 Kimi K2 technical report 76.4 Livebench (Pass@1), 2024-11-25 snapshot (Table 3) Capabilities
Jun 29, 2025 ERNIE-4.5-300B-A47B technical report 68.9 LiveBench (2024-11-25) (Table 5) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-8B technical report 67.1 LiveBench 2024-11-25, thinking mode (Table 17). Non-thinking 53.5 (Table 18) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-4B technical report 63.6 LiveBench 2024-11-25, thinking mode (Table 17). Non-thinking 48.4 (Table 18) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-32B technical report 74.9 LiveBench 2024-11-25, thinking mode (Table 13). Non-thinking 59.8 (Table 14) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-30B-A3B technical report 74.3 LiveBench 2024-11-25, thinking mode (Table 15). Non-thinking 59.4 (Table 16) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-235B-A22B technical report 77.1 LiveBench 2024-11-25, thinking mode (Table 11). Non-thinking 62.5 (Table 12) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-14B technical report 71.3 LiveBench 2024-11-25, thinking mode (Table 15). Non-thinking 59.6 (Table 16) Capabilities
May 14, 2025 Qwen3-1.7B technical report 51.1 LiveBench 2024-11-25, thinking mode (Table 19). Non-thinking 35.6 (Table 20) Capabilities
Mar 26, 2025 Qwen2.5-Omni-7B technical report 29.6 LiveBench0831 (Table 1) Capabilities
Mar 3, 2025 Phi-4 Mini technical report LiveBench code task only, 30.5, no overall LiveBench score (Table 8) Capabilities
Feb 19, 2025 Qwen2.5-VL-72B technical report 57 LiveBench-0831 (Table 4) Capabilities
Jan 26, 2025 Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct-1M technical report 44.6 LiveBench 0831 (Table 6) Capabilities
Dec 19, 2024 Qwen2.5-7B technical report 35.9 LiveBench 0831, 2024-08-31 release, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (Table 8) Capabilities
Dec 19, 2024 Qwen2.5-72B technical report 52.3 LiveBench 0831, 2024-08-31 release, Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct (Table 6) Capabilities
Dec 19, 2024 Qwen2.5-32B technical report 50.7 LiveBench 0831, 2024-08-31 release, Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct (Table 7) Capabilities
Dec 19, 2024 Qwen2.5-14B technical report 44.4 LiveBench 0831, 2024-08-31 release, Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct (Table 7) Capabilities
Dec 19, 2024 Qwen-Turbo technical report 42.3 LiveBench 0831, 2024-08-31 release, Qwen2.5-Turbo (Table 7) Capabilities
Dec 12, 2024 Phi-4 technical report 47.6 LiveBench (Table 1) Capabilities

2 logged changes that move scores

Changes by the maintainers, so a score from before a change may not compare with one from after it. Newest first, each with the maintainers' own source. The list may be incomplete. What we log.

  1. Scores recomputed October 3rd, 2025

    The maintainers reran agentic coding with Mini-SWE-Agent and raised the step limit from 50 to 250. They replaced the existing leaderboard results, so earlier scores use a different scaffold and budget. Source

  2. Tasks changed June 24th, 2024

    The maintainers removed the house-traversal task after fixing ambiguous answer parsing revealed saturation. Scores thereafter cover a different set of tasks. Source

More in Other

All 43 in Other
  • Personal Superintelligence Index (Meta) In use Meta's composite of seven personal and knowledge-work evals: Agents' Last Exam, AutomationBench-AA, FocusBench, JobBench, GDP.pdf, VBT and DRACO.
  • Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5 In use Version 5 of Artificial Analysis's index: nine evaluations in four equal categories, most with private test sets, run three times each in its own agent harness. Gemini 4 Carbon 59.0
  • SAGE v1.1 (Vals) In use Models grade handwritten undergraduate math and computer science work against rubrics. Scored by class-balanced accuracy of each rubric check against expert grading. Claude Opus 5.5 91.3%
  • MTEB Fading Massive Text Embedding Benchmark: retrieval, clustering, classification across languages and modalities. sonar 42%
  • Anthropic ECI (AECI) Only in system cards Index that combines a basket of capability benchmarks into one capability score to track trends across Anthropic models. Claude Opus 5.5 169.4
  • SPEED-Bench Only in system cards Measures speculative decoding across varied prompts and domains. Reports the average acceptance length of draft tokens, so higher means faster generation at the same output. Nemotron 3 Ultra 5.15