Benchmark Almanac

OccuBench

GPT-5.2 79.6% leads since April 2026
Not in model cards

Agents do 100 professional task scenarios across 10 industries and 65 domains. Language world models simulate each domain's tools so tasks stay solvable.

69 HF paper upvotes.

Made by
Qwen (Alibaba)
Released
April 2026
Kind
Tasks from real jobs
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 4.6 #37 on the capability index
Last model added
March 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

AI agents are expected to perform professional work across hundreds of occupational domains (from emergency department triage to nuclear reactor safety monitoring to customs import processing), yet existing benchmarks can only evaluate agents in the few domains where public environments exist. We introduce OccuBench, a benchmark covering 100 real-world professional task scenarios across 10 industry categories and 65 specialized domains, enabled by Language Environment Simulators (LESs) that simulate domain-specific environments through LLM-driven tool response generation. Our multi-agent synthesis pipeline automatically produces evaluation instances with guaranteed solvability, calibrated difficulty, and document-grounded diversity. OccuBench evaluates agents along two complementary dimensions: task completion across professional domains and environmental robustness under controlled fault injection (explicit errors, implicit data degradation, and mixed faults). We evaluate 15 frontier models across 8 model families and find that: (1) no single model dominates all industries, as each has a distinct occupational capability profile; (2) implicit faults (truncated data, missing fields) are harder than both explicit errors (timeouts, 500s) and mixed faults, because they lack overt error signals and require the agent to independently detect data degradation; (3) larger models, newer generations, and higher reasoning effort consistently improve performance. GPT-5.2 improves by 27.5 points from minimal to maximum reasoning effort; and (4) strong agents are not necessarily strong environment simulators. Simulator quality is critical for LES-based evaluation reliability. OccuBench provides the first systematic cross-industry evaluation of AI agents on professional occupational tasks.

Abstract of OccuBench: Evaluating AI Agents on Real-World Professional Tasks via Language Environment Simulation (arXiv:2604.10866, CC0)
15
Entries on its own leaderboard, 14 models we track

GPT-5.2 leads with 79.6% among models released by March 2026

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 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:

  1. 1 GPT-5.2 E0 clean environment 79.6%
  2. 2 Gemini 3.1 Pro E1 robustness environment 73.3%
  3. 3 Claude Opus 4.6 E0 clean environment 71.5%
  4. 4 Qwen3.5-Plus E0 clean environment 69.9%
  5. 5 DeepSeek-V3.2 E0 clean environment 69.6%
  6. 6 Claude Opus 4.5 E0 clean environment 65.2%
  7. 7 Claude Sonnet 4.5 E0 clean environment 64.9%
  8. 8 Claude Sonnet 4.6 E0 clean environment 64.4%
  9. 9 Kimi K2.5 E0 clean environment 64.1%
  10. 10 GLM-5 E0 clean environment 62.6%
  11. 11 Gemini 3.1 FL E0 clean environment 61.3%
  12. 12 Claude Opus 4 E0 clean environment 61.3%
  13. 13 Qwen3.5-Flash E0 clean environment 59.7%
  14. 14 MiniMax-M2.7 E0 clean environment 53.9%
  15. 15 Claude Sonnet 4 E0 clean environment 53.4%

Source: Official OccuBench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-5.2 79.6% E0 clean environment Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3.1 Pro 73.3% E1 robustness environment Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Opus 4.6 71.5% E0 clean environment Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Qwen3.5-Plus 69.9% E0 clean environment Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
5 DeepSeek-V3.2 69.6% E0 clean environment Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Opus 4.5 65.2% E0 clean environment Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Claude Sonnet 4.5 64.9% E0 clean environment Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Sonnet 4.6 64.4% E0 clean environment Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Kimi K2.5 64.1% E0 clean environment Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GLM-5 62.6% E0 clean environment Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Gemini 3.1 FL 61.3% E0 clean environment Official leaderboard
12 Claude Opus 4 61.3% E0 clean environment May 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen3.5-Flash 59.7% E0 clean environment Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
14 MiniMax-M2.7 53.9% E0 clean environment Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Claude Sonnet 4 53.4% E0 clean environment May 2025 Official leaderboard

Scores at each effort level

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
GPT-5.2
E3 robustne… E2 robustne… E1 robustne… E0 clean en…
79.6%
Gemini 3.1 Pro
E2 robustne… E0 clean en…
73.3%
Claude Opus 4.6
E2 robustne… E3 robustne… E1 robustne… E0 clean en…
71.5%
Qwen3.5-Plus
E2 robustne… E1 robustne… E0 clean en…
69.9%
DeepSeek-V3.2
E3 robustne… E2 robustne… E1 robustne… E0 clean en…
69.6%
Claude Sonnet 4.6
E2 robustne… E3 robustne… E1 robustne…
64.4%
Kimi K2.5
E3 robustne… E1 robustne… E0 clean en…
64.1%
GLM-5
E3 robustne… E2 robustne… E1 robustne… E0 clean en…
62.6%
MiniMax-M2.7
E3 robustne… E1 robustne…
53.9%

Source: Official OccuBench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-5.2 E0 clean environment 79.6%
GPT-5.2 E1 robustness environment 75.9%
Gemini 3.1 Pro E1 robustness environment 73.3%
Gemini 3.1 Pro E0 clean environment 72.3%
Claude Opus 4.6 E0 clean environment 71.5%
GPT-5.2 E2 robustness environment 70.4%
Qwen3.5-Plus E0 clean environment 69.9%
DeepSeek-V3.2 E0 clean environment 69.6%
Claude Opus 4.6 E1 robustness environment 68.1%
GPT-5.2 E3 robustness environment 67%
Claude Opus 4.5 E0 clean environment 65.2%
Gemini 3.1 Pro E3 robustness environment 65.2%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 E0 clean environment 64.9%
Claude Sonnet 4.6 E0 clean environment 64.4%
Kimi K2.5 E0 clean environment 64.1%
Claude Opus 4.6 E3 robustness environment 63.9%
Gemini 3.1 Pro E2 robustness environment 63.1%
Claude Sonnet 4.6 E1 robustness environment 62.8%
GLM-5 E0 clean environment 62.6%
Claude Opus 4 E0 clean environment 61.3%
Qwen3.5-Plus E1 robustness environment 61%
DeepSeek-V3.2 E1 robustness environment 59.9%
Qwen3.5-Flash E0 clean environment 59.7%
GLM-5 E1 robustness environment 59.4%
DeepSeek-V3.2 E2 robustness environment 56%
Qwen3.5-Plus E3 robustness environment 54.2%
Claude Opus 4.6 E2 robustness environment 53.9%
MiniMax-M2.7 E0 clean environment 53.9%
Claude Sonnet 4 E0 clean environment 53.4%
Claude Sonnet 4.6 E3 robustness environment 52.9%
MiniMax-M2.7 E1 robustness environment 52.9%
GLM-5 E2 robustness environment 52.6%
DeepSeek-V3.2 E3 robustness environment 51.6%
Qwen3.5-Plus E2 robustness environment 51.6%
Kimi K2.5 E1 robustness environment 50%
GLM-5 E3 robustness environment 47.4%
MiniMax-M2.7 E2 robustness environment 47.1%
MiniMax-M2.7 E3 robustness environment 46.9%
Claude Sonnet 4.6 E2 robustness environment 45%
Kimi K2.5 E2 robustness environment 40.6%
Kimi K2.5 E3 robustness environment 40.1%

Number one over time

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

OpenAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since Apr 2026
GPT-5.2 79.6%

Source: Official OccuBench 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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.2 DeepSeek-V3.2 Claude Opus 4.5 Claude Opus 4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.2 DeepSeek-V3.2

Source: Official OccuBench 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.

More in Economic work

All 97 in Economic work
  • JobBench In use 130 tasks from 35 occupations workers most want delegated. Agent works through messy reference files, graded by fact-anchored binary rubrics. GLM-5.3 61.4%
  • GDPval In use Real work tasks from 44 occupations with reference files. Experts blindly compare model deliverables with expert work. Metric is win-or-tie rate. Seed2.1 Pro 87.9%
  • GDPval-AA v2.1 In use Agents with shell and web access complete 220 GDPval gold tasks from 44 occupations. Blind pairwise comparisons give Elo ratings. Claude Opus 5.5 1,846
  • AA-Briefcase v1.1 In use Version 1.1 of Artificial Analysis's multi-hour office work evaluation, with Elo ratings fitted by Crowd-BT. Claude Opus 5.5 1,822
  • CoWorkBench In use Agent completes long-horizon productivity tasks across computer science, finance, law and medicine. Qwen in-house scoring (method unpublished). Claude Fable 5 75.9%
  • OfficeQA In use Grounded reasoning over a large corpus of U.S. Treasury Bulletin documents: locate tables and compute precise numeric answers. Claude Opus 4.7 86.3%