Benchmark Almanac

Political Science LLM Benchmark

Claude Opus 5 71.4% leads since July 2026
Not in model cards

33 political-science text-coding tasks, 100 texts each (~3,300 items). Models scored by mean F1 against human-coded labels.

31 models. Open-weight models run on one GPU. Some texts may be in training data.

Released
May 2026
Kind
Other
Level
University
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
Last model added
October 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Can researchers use local open-weight models instead of commercial APIs for LLM text classification? Local models avoid marginal API charges, keep data on the researcher's machine, and make exact model versions easier to preserve. I benchmark five local models against four commercial API models on 34 political science classification tasks. Local models are often competitive, especially on simpler tasks. In a task-specific oracle comparison, local models match or exceed API performance on 9 tasks; on average, the best API model exceeds the best local model by 0.015 F1. The four strongest observed model means fall within 0.021 F1. API models have their clearest edge on complex tasks with many labels or multiple outputs per item. Batching several items in one prompt usually reduces local runtime per item, but specific model-task pairs can return invalid response formats or labels. Taken together, the results make local open-weight models a practical candidate alternative for many political science classification tasks, provided researchers validate candidate models on task-specific labels and check batching reliability before scaling up.

Abstract of Open-Weight LLMs Are Often Competitive with Commercial APIs for Political Science Text Classification (arXiv:2605.19275, CC0)
43
Entries on its own leaderboard, 42 models we track

Claude Opus 5 leads with 71.4%

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.

  1. 1 Claude Opus 5 71.4%
  2. 2 Claude Opus 5.5 70.2%
  3. 3 Claude Sonnet 5 69.7%
  4. 4 Gemini 4 Argon 69.6%
  5. 5 GPT-5.6 Sol 69.2%
  6. 6 Claude Sonnet 5.5 68.9%
  7. 7 Gemini 3.8 Flash 68.7%
  8. 8 Kimi K3.1 Pro 68.6%
  9. 9 GPT-5.6 Terra 68.3%
  10. 10 GPT-6.1 Sol 68.3%
  11. 11 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 68.1%
  12. 12 GPT-6 Astra 67.9%
  13. 13 MiMo-V2.6 Flash fp8, 4 gpus 67.9%
  14. 14 Llama 3.1-70B fp8 67.5%
  15. 15 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next fp8, 2 gpus 67.5%
  16. 16 GPT-5.6 Luna 67%
  17. 17 Llama 3.3 70B dynamic fp8 66.9%
  18. 18 GLM-5.3 66.7%
  19. 19 Qwen3.6 27B fp8 66.6%
  20. 20 Grok 4.7 66.6%
  21. 21 GPT-6 Luna 66.6%
  22. 22 DeepSeek-V4-Flash 66.5%
  23. 23 Gemma 4 31B IT w4a16 66.4%
  24. 24 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 66.3%
  25. 25 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 66.2%
  26. 26 Beam 1.0 66.2%
  27. 27 Jev 1.13 66.1%
  28. 28 Gemma 3 27B dynamic fp8 66%
  29. 29 Claude Haiku 5.5 65.7%
  30. 30 Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B fp8 65.1%
  31. 31 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B fp8 65%
  32. 32 Qwen2.5-32B bf16 64.9%
  33. 33 Qwen2.5-72B dynamic fp8 64.8%
  34. 34 Qwen3-32B bf16 64.8%
  35. 35 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B fp8 64.3%
  36. 36 Mistral Small 3.1 bf16 64.2%
  37. 37 Qwen 3.8 27B fp8 63.5%
  38. 38 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B bf16 63.4%
  39. 39 Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct Jul 2025, fp8 63%
  40. 40 Mistral Small 4 nvfp4 62.9%
  41. 41 Qwen1.5-32B 61.9%
  42. 42 glm-4.7-flash 60.2%
  43. 43 Qwen3-30B-A3B bf16 59.3%

Source: Official Political Science LLM Benchmark leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 5 71.4% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Opus 5.5 70.2% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Sonnet 5 69.7% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 4 Argon 69.6% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-5.6 Sol 69.2% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Sonnet 5.5 68.9% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 3.8 Flash 68.7% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Kimi K3.1 Pro 68.6% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-5.6 Terra 68.3% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-6.1 Sol 68.3% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 68.1% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
12 GPT-6 Astra 67.9% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
13 MiMo-V2.6 Flash 67.9% fp8, 4 gpus Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Llama 3.1-70B 67.5% fp8 Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 67.5% fp8, 2 gpus Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
16 GPT-5.6 Luna 67% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Llama 3.3 70B 66.9% dynamic fp8 Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
18 GLM-5.3 66.7% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
19 Qwen3.6 27B 66.6% fp8 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
20 Grok 4.7 66.6% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
21 GPT-6 Luna 66.6% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
22 DeepSeek-V4-Flash 66.5% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
23 Gemma 4 31B IT 66.4% w4a16 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
24 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 66.3% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
25 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 66.2% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
26 Beam 1.0 66.2% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
27 Jev 1.13 66.1% Official leaderboard
28 Gemma 3 27B 66% dynamic fp8 Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
29 Claude Haiku 5.5 65.7% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
30 Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B 65.1% fp8 Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
31 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 65% fp8 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
32 Qwen2.5-32B 64.9% bf16 Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
33 Qwen2.5-72B 64.8% dynamic fp8 Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
34 Qwen3-32B 64.8% bf16 Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
35 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 64.3% fp8 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
36 Mistral Small 3.1 64.2% bf16 Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
37 Qwen 3.8 27B 63.5% fp8 Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
38 DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 63.4% bf16 Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
39 Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct Jul 2025 63% fp8 Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
40 Mistral Small 4 62.9% nvfp4 Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
41 Qwen1.5-32B 61.9% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
42 glm-4.7-flash 60.2% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
43 Qwen3-30B-A3B 59.3% bf16 Apr 2025 Official leaderboard

Cost and performance

Source costs include conservative usage-based estimates. Values are per text classified. The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% $0.00001$0.0001$0.001$0.01 Cost per text ($), log scale, lower is better Mean F1 DeepSeek-V4-Flash: Mean F1 66.5%, cost per text $0.0003 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Mean F1 66.3%, cost per text $0.0007 GPT-5.6 Sol: Mean F1 69.2%, cost per text $0.001 GPT-5.6 Terra: Mean F1 68.3%, cost per text $0.0007 GLM-5.3: Mean F1 66.7%, cost per text $0.0002 GPT-6 Astra: Mean F1 67.9%, cost per text $0.004 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Mean F1 66.2%, cost per text $0.00003 Grok 4.7: Mean F1 66.6%, cost per text $0.002 Claude Sonnet 5.5: Mean F1 68.9%, cost per text $0.001 Beam 1.0: Mean F1 66.2%, cost per text $0.0004 Claude Haiku 5.5: Mean F1 65.7%, cost per text $0.00006 Kimi K3.1 Pro: Mean F1 68.6%, cost per text $0.001 Jev 1.13: Mean F1 66.1%, cost per text $0.00004. Not in our model list Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite: Mean F1 68.1%, cost per text $0.0001 Claude Sonnet 5: Mean F1 69.7%, cost per text $0.002 GPT-5.6 Luna: Mean F1 67%, cost per text $0.00007 Claude Opus 5: Mean F1 71.4%, cost per text $0.004 Gemini 3.8 Flash: Mean F1 68.7%, cost per text $0.0005 Claude Opus 5.5: Mean F1 70.2%, cost per text $0.002 GPT-6 Luna: Mean F1 66.6%, cost per text $0.00003 GPT-6.1 Sol: Mean F1 68.3%, cost per text $0.0005 Gemini 4 Argon: Mean F1 69.6%, cost per text $0.0008 Claude Opus 5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Sonnet 5Gemini 4 ArgonGemini 3.8 FlashGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGPT-5.6 LunaGPT-6 Luna 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% $0.00001$0.0001$0.001$0.01 Cost per text ($), log scale, lower is better Mean F1 DeepSeek-V4-Flash: Mean F1 66.5%, cost per text $0.0003 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Mean F1 66.3%, cost per text $0.0007 GPT-5.6 Sol: Mean F1 69.2%, cost per text $0.001 GPT-5.6 Terra: Mean F1 68.3%, cost per text $0.0007 GLM-5.3: Mean F1 66.7%, cost per text $0.0002 GPT-6 Astra: Mean F1 67.9%, cost per text $0.004 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Mean F1 66.2%, cost per text $0.00003 Grok 4.7: Mean F1 66.6%, cost per text $0.002 Claude Sonnet 5.5: Mean F1 68.9%, cost per text $0.001 Beam 1.0: Mean F1 66.2%, cost per text $0.0004 Claude Haiku 5.5: Mean F1 65.7%, cost per text $0.00006 Kimi K3.1 Pro: Mean F1 68.6%, cost per text $0.001 Jev 1.13: Mean F1 66.1%, cost per text $0.00004. Not in our model list Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite: Mean F1 68.1%, cost per text $0.0001 Claude Sonnet 5: Mean F1 69.7%, cost per text $0.002 GPT-5.6 Luna: Mean F1 67%, cost per text $0.00007 Claude Opus 5: Mean F1 71.4%, cost per text $0.004 Gemini 3.8 Flash: Mean F1 68.7%, cost per text $0.0005 Claude Opus 5.5: Mean F1 70.2%, cost per text $0.002 GPT-6 Luna: Mean F1 66.6%, cost per text $0.00003 GPT-6.1 Sol: Mean F1 68.3%, cost per text $0.0005 Gemini 4 Argon: Mean F1 69.6%, cost per text $0.0008 Claude Opus 5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Sonnet 5Gemini 4 ArgonGemini 3.8 FlashGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.1 Flash-LiteGPT-5.6 LunaGPT-6 Luna
ModelSettingMean F1Cost per text
Claude Opus 5 71.4% $0
Claude Opus 5.5 70.2% $0
Claude Sonnet 5 69.7% $0
Gemini 4 Argon 69.6% $0
GPT-5.6 Sol 69.2% $0
Claude Sonnet 5.5 68.9% $0
Gemini 3.8 Flash 68.7% $0
Kimi K3.1 Pro 68.6% $0
GPT-6.1 Sol 68.3% $0
GPT-5.6 Terra 68.3% $0
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 68.1% $0
GPT-6 Astra 67.9% $0
GPT-5.6 Luna 67% $0
GLM-5.3 66.7% $0
GPT-6 Luna 66.6% $0
Grok 4.7 66.6% $0
DeepSeek-V4-Flash 66.5% $0
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 66.3% $0
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 66.2% $0
Beam 1.0 66.2% $0
Jev 1.13 66.1% $0
Claude Haiku 5.5 65.7% $0

The best score, 71.4%, costs $0.004 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. GPT-6 Luna comes within 4.8 points of the best for $0.00003 a task, 161 times cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

Google DeepMind Anthropic OpenAI Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% $0.00001 $0.0001 $0.001 $0.01 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5 Claude Opus 5.5 Gemini 4 Argon Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite GPT-6 Luna 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% $0.00001 $0.0001 $0.001 $0.01 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5 Gemini 3.8 Flash

Source: Official Political Science LLM Benchmark leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 5 71.4% $0.004 43
Claude Opus 5.5 70.2% $0.002 20
Claude Sonnet 5 69.7% $0.002 43
Gemini 4 Argon 69.6% $0.0008 27
GPT-5.6 Sol 69.2% $0.001 14
Claude Sonnet 5.5 68.9% $0.001 17
Gemini 3.8 Flash 68.7% $0.0005 43
Kimi K3.1 Pro 68.6% $0.001 20
GPT-5.6 Terra 68.3% $0.0007 14
GPT-6.1 Sol 68.3% $0.0005 24
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 68.1% $0.0001 10
GPT-6 Astra 67.9% $0.004 21
MiMo-V2.6 Flash fp8, 4 gpus 67.9%
Llama 3.1-70B fp8 67.5%
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next fp8, 2 gpus 67.5%
GPT-5.6 Luna 67% $0.00007 15
Llama 3.3 70B dynamic fp8 66.9%
GLM-5.3 66.7% $0.0002 20
Qwen3.6 27B fp8 66.6%
Grok 4.7 66.6% $0.002 278
GPT-6 Luna 66.6% $0.00003 16
DeepSeek-V4-Flash 66.5% $0.0003 10
Gemma 4 31B IT w4a16 66.4%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 66.3% $0.0007 10
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 66.2% $0.00003 11
Beam 1.0 66.2% $0.0004 330
Gemma 3 27B dynamic fp8 66%
Claude Haiku 5.5 65.7% $0.00006 16
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B fp8 65.1%
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B fp8 65%
Qwen2.5-32B bf16 64.9%
Qwen2.5-72B dynamic fp8 64.8%
Qwen3-32B bf16 64.8%
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B fp8 64.3%
Mistral Small 3.1 bf16 64.2%
Qwen 3.8 27B fp8 63.5%
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B bf16 63.4%
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct Jul 2025 fp8 63%
Mistral Small 4 nvfp4 62.9%
Qwen1.5-32B 61.9%
glm-4.7-flash 60.2%
Qwen3-30B-A3B bf16 59.3%

3 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2026

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

Google DeepMind Anthropic
Own leaderboard 3 leaders

Source: Official Political Science LLM Benchmark 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% 2024 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5 Llama 3.1-70B Qwen1.5-32B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5 Llama 3.1-70B

Source: Official Political Science LLM Benchmark 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 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