Benchmark Almanac

$OneMillion-Bench

Claude Fable 5.1 42.1% leads since September 2026
Seed2.1 Pro 68.8% leads since June 2026
In use

Agent solves 400 expert-curated tasks in law, finance, industry, healthcare and science. Rubric grading of accuracy, logic, feasibility and compliance.

NeurIPS 2026. Qwen reports an expert score judged by gemini-3.1-pro-preview.

Made by
Humanlaya + BIGAI + xbench
Released
March 2026
Kind
Tasks from real jobs
Level
Expert
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Fable 5.1 #7 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
August 2026
Last model added
September 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

As language models (LMs) evolve from chat assistants to long-horizon agents capable of multi-step reasoning and tool use, existing benchmarks remain largely confined to structured or exam-style tasks that fall short of real-world professional demands. To this end, we introduce $OneMillion-Bench ($OMB), a benchmark of 400 expert-curated tasks spanning Law, Finance, Industry, Healthcare, and Natural Science, built to evaluate agents across economically consequential scenarios. Unlike prior work, the benchmark requires retrieving authoritative sources, resolving conflicting evidence, applying domain-specific rules, and making constraint decisions, where correctness depends as much on the reasoning process as the final answer. We adopt a rubric-based evaluation protocol scoring factual accuracy, logical coherence, practical feasibility, and professional compliance, focusing on expert-level problems to ensure meaningful differentiation across agents. Together, $OMB provides a unified testbed for assessing agentic reliability, professional depth, and an indicator of practical readiness in domain-intensive scenarios.

Abstract of $OneMillion-Bench: How Far are Language Agents from Human Experts? (arXiv:2603.07980, CC0)
13
Models scored on its own leaderboard
2
Launch posts list it, from 2 labs
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 42.1% among models released by September 2026

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.

Seed2.1 Pro leads with 68.8%, 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 tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude Fable 5.1 42.1%
  2. 2 Tencent Hy4 preview 35.3%
  3. 3 Kimi K3 35%
  4. 4 GPT-5.6 Sol Pro 32.2%
  5. 5 Qwen 3.8 Max 31.9%
  6. 6 GLM-5.3 31%
  7. 7 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 26%
  8. 8 Seed2.1 Pro 23.7%
  9. 9 Gemini 3.7 Flash 22.5%
  10. 10 Inkling 22.1%
  11. 11 Gemini 3.5 Flash 17%
  12. 12 Grok 4.5 15.8%
  13. 13 Tencent Hy3 13%

Source: Official $OneMillion-Bench leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Fable 5.1 42.1% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Tencent Hy4 preview 35.3% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Kimi K3 35% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5.6 Sol Pro 32.2% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Qwen 3.8 Max 31.9% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GLM-5.3 31% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 26% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Seed2.1 Pro 23.7% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Gemini 3.7 Flash 22.5% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Inkling 22.1% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Gemini 3.5 Flash 17% May 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Grok 4.5 15.8% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Tencent Hy3 13% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed2.1 Pro 68.8% Jun 2026 Lab model card
2 Tencent Hy4 preview 65.4% Aug 2026 Lab model card
3 Claude Fable 5.1 42.1% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Kimi K3 35% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-5.6 Sol Pro 32.2% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Qwen 3.8 Max 31.9% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GLM-5.3 31% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
8 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 26% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Gemini 3.7 Flash 22.5% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Inkling 22.1% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Gemini 3.5 Flash 17% May 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Grok 4.5 15.8% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Tencent Hy3 13% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 2 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

5 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in March 2026 2 models have held number one with claims included since its release in March 2026

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

DeepSeek OpenAI Moonshot AI Tencent Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Sep 2026

Source: Official $OneMillion-Bench 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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.1 Pro DeepSeek-V4-Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed2.1 Pro DeepSeek-V4-Pro

Sources: Official $OneMillion-Bench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

2 labs put it in a launch post in the last six months

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
Tencent
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Aug 28, 2026 Tencent Hy4 preview 65.4 OneMillionBench (with tools)
Aug 3, 2026 Qwen 3.8 Max $OneMillion-Bench (expert score)

One system card reports it

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 23, 2026 Seed2.1 Pro model card 68.8 OneMillion Bench (Table 1) Capabilities

The lab's number comes out ahead in 2 of 2 pairs that differ

Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
Seed2.1 Pro 68.8% OneMillion Bench (Table 1) 23.7% Leaderboard +45 pts
Tencent Hy4 preview 65.4% OneMillionBench (with tools) 35.3% Leaderboard +30 pts

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%