MBABench
Agents build complete financial models in Excel from a case prompt and documents. An LLM judge grades accuracy, formulas and formatting on a 0 to 100 scale.
Each task runs through three Excel interaction surfaces so one judge can compare them. The judge was validated against finance experts.
- Released
- May 2026
- Kind
- Finance
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.4 #27 on the capability index
- Last model added
- March 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
LLM agents are increasingly expected to carry out end-to-end workflows, producing complete artifacts from high-level user instructions. To meet enterprise needs, frontier AI labs have developed agents that can construct entire spreadsheets from scratch. This is especially relevant in finance, where core workflows such as financial modeling, forecasting, and scenario analysis are commonly conducted through spreadsheets. Yet, existing spreadsheet benchmarks do not measure this new capability, focusing instead on question-answering or single-formula edits. To address this gap, we provide one of the first evaluations of agents on end-to-end spreadsheet tasks, focusing on economically critical financial workflows such as modeling and scenario analysis. Since deliverables therein are routinely reviewed and revised by multiple stakeholders, judging their quality necessarily involves high-level criteria such as readability or ease of modification. To reflect the multidimensional nature of solution quality, we develop an evaluation taxonomy comprising three dimensions: Accuracy, Formula, and Format, each comprising fine-grained criteria that reflect professional standards. Evaluating over 18 agents, the benchmark reveals that even the strongest agents fall short of basic professional finance standards, and their performance degrade sharply as the difficulty increases beyond a few chained calculations. This suggests that current agents are not yet able to reliably produce professional-quality spreadsheets at the level of complexity real-world workflows demand.
Claude (Web) tops the leaderboard with 69.1
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. 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 ChatGPT agent, at 31.2.
The newest model with a score here came out in March 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 1 Claude (Web) GUI 69.1
- 2 ChatGPT (Excel) GUI 60.4
- 3 Claude (Excel) GUI 59.0
- 4 ChatGPT Pro GUI 58.7
- 5 ChatGPT agent GUI 31.2
- 6 Claude Opus 4.6 API 18.2
- 7
Gemini 3.1 Pro API 16.1
- 8 GPT-5.4 API 16.0
- 9 Grok 4.2 API 15.5
- 10
Qwen 3.6 Plus API 14.7
- 11 Kimi K2 Sep 2025, API 14.4
- 12 OLMo 3.1 API 6.80
Source: Official MBABench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude (Web) | 69.1 | GUI, Claude (Web) | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | ChatGPT (Excel) | 60.4 | GUI, ChatGPT (Excel) | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Claude (Excel) | 59.0 | GUI, Claude (Excel) | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | ChatGPT Pro | 58.7 | GUI, ChatGPT Pro | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | ChatGPT agent | 31.2 | GUI, ChatGPT Agent | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 18.2 | API, MBABench API harness | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 16.1 | API, MBABench API harness | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | GPT-5.4 | 16.0 | API, MBABench API harness | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | Grok 4.2 | 15.5 | API, MBABench API harness | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 14.7 | API, MBABench API harness | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | 14.4 | API, MBABench API harness | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | OLMo 3.1 | 6.80 | API, MBABench API harness | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official MBABench leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official MBABench 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.
Versions
More 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%