Political Science LLM Benchmark
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.
- Made by
- Hanno Hilbig (UC Davis)
- 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.
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.
- 71.4 Claude Opus 5
- 70.2 Claude Opus 5.5
- 69.7 Claude Sonnet 5
- 69.6
Gemini 4 Argon
- 69.2 GPT-5.6 Sol
- 68.9 Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 68.7
Gemini 3.8 Flash
- 68.6 Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 68.3 GPT-5.6 Terra
- 68.3 GPT-6.1 Sol
- 68.1
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 67.9 GPT-6 Astra
- 67.9 MiMo-V2.6 Flash
- 67.5
Llama 3.1-70B
- 67.5
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- 67.0 GPT-5.6 Luna
- 66.9
Llama 3.3 70B
- 66.7 GLM-5.3
- 66.6
Qwen3.6 27B
- 66.6 Grok 4.7
- 66.6 GPT-6 Luna
- 66.5
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
- 66.4
Gemma 4 31B IT
- 66.3
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 66.2
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 66.2 Beam 1.0
- 66.1 Jev 1.13
- 66.0
Gemma 3 27B
- 65.7 Claude Haiku 5.5
- 65.1
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B
- 65.0
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
- 64.9
Qwen2.5-32B
- 64.8
Qwen2.5-72B
- 64.8
Qwen3-32B
- 64.3
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B
- 64.2
Mistral Small 3.1
- 63.5
Qwen 3.8 27B
- 63.4
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B
- 63.0
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct
- 62.9
Mistral Small 4
- 61.9
Qwen1.5-32B
- 60.2 glm-4.7-flash
- 59.3
Qwen3-30B-A3B
- 1 Claude Opus 5 71.4%
- 2 Claude Opus 5.5 70.2%
- 3 Claude Sonnet 5 69.7%
- 4
Gemini 4 Argon 69.6%
- 5 GPT-5.6 Sol 69.2%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 5.5 68.9%
- 7
Gemini 3.8 Flash 68.7%
- 8 Kimi K3.1 Pro 68.6%
- 9 GPT-5.6 Terra 68.3%
- 10 GPT-6.1 Sol 68.3%
- 11
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 68.1%
- 12 GPT-6 Astra 67.9%
- 13 MiMo-V2.6 Flash fp8, 4 gpus 67.9%
- 14
Llama 3.1-70B fp8 67.5%
- 15
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next fp8, 2 gpus 67.5%
- 16 GPT-5.6 Luna 67%
- 17
Llama 3.3 70B dynamic fp8 66.9%
- 18 GLM-5.3 66.7%
- 19
Qwen3.6 27B fp8 66.6%
- 20 Grok 4.7 66.6%
- 21 GPT-6 Luna 66.6%
- 22
DeepSeek-V4-Flash 66.5%
- 23
Gemma 4 31B IT w4a16 66.4%
- 24
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 66.3%
- 25
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 66.2%
- 26 Beam 1.0 66.2%
- 27 Jev 1.13 66.1%
- 28
Gemma 3 27B dynamic fp8 66%
- 29 Claude Haiku 5.5 65.7%
- 30
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B fp8 65.1%
- 31
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B fp8 65%
- 32
Qwen2.5-32B bf16 64.9%
- 33
Qwen2.5-72B dynamic fp8 64.8%
- 34
Qwen3-32B bf16 64.8%
- 35
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B fp8 64.3%
- 36
Mistral Small 3.1 bf16 64.2%
- 37
Qwen 3.8 27B fp8 63.5%
- 38
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B bf16 63.4%
- 39
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct Jul 2025, fp8 63%
- 40
Mistral Small 4 nvfp4 62.9%
- 41
Qwen1.5-32B 61.9%
- 42 glm-4.7-flash 60.2%
- 43
Qwen3-30B-A3B bf16 59.3%
Source: Official Political Science LLM Benchmark leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 67.5% | fp8 | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 67.5% | fp8, 2 gpus | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | GPT-5.6 Luna | 67% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 66.9% | dynamic fp8 | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | GLM-5.3 | 66.7% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 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 | | 66.5% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | | 66.4% | w4a16 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 24 | | 66.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 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 | | 66% | dynamic fp8 | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 29 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | 65.7% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | | 65.1% | fp8 | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 31 | | 65% | fp8 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 32 | | 64.9% | bf16 | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 33 | | 64.8% | dynamic fp8 | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 34 | | 64.8% | bf16 | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 35 | | 64.3% | fp8 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 36 | | 64.2% | bf16 | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 37 | | 63.5% | fp8 | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 38 | | 63.4% | bf16 | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 39 | | 63% | fp8 | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 40 | | 62.9% | nvfp4 | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 41 | | 61.9% | Feb 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 42 | glm-4.7-flash | 60.2% | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 43 | | 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.
| Model | Setting | Mean F1 | Cost per text |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5 | 71.4% | $0 | |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 70.2% | $0 | |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 69.7% | $0 | |
| | 69.6% | $0 | |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 69.2% | $0 | |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 68.9% | $0 | |
| | 68.7% | $0 | |
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | 68.6% | $0 | |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 68.3% | $0 | |
| GPT-5.6 Terra | 68.3% | $0 | |
| | 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 | |
| | 66.5% | $0 | |
| | 66.3% | $0 | |
| | 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.
Source: Official Political Science LLM Benchmark leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output 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 | ||
| | 69.6% | $0.0008 | 27 | ||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 69.2% | $0.001 | 14 | ||
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 68.9% | $0.001 | 17 | ||
| | 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 | ||
| | 68.1% | $0.0001 | 10 | ||
| GPT-6 Astra | 67.9% | $0.004 | 21 | ||
| MiMo-V2.6 Flash | fp8, 4 gpus | 67.9% | |||
| | fp8 | 67.5% | |||
| | fp8, 2 gpus | 67.5% | |||
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 67% | $0.00007 | 15 | ||
| | dynamic fp8 | 66.9% | |||
| GLM-5.3 | 66.7% | $0.0002 | 20 | ||
| | fp8 | 66.6% | |||
| Grok 4.7 | 66.6% | $0.002 | 278 | ||
| GPT-6 Luna | 66.6% | $0.00003 | 16 | ||
| | 66.5% | $0.0003 | 10 | ||
| | w4a16 | 66.4% | |||
| | 66.3% | $0.0007 | 10 | ||
| | 66.2% | $0.00003 | 11 | ||
| Beam 1.0 | 66.2% | $0.0004 | 330 | ||
| | dynamic fp8 | 66% | |||
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | 65.7% | $0.00006 | 16 | ||
| | fp8 | 65.1% | |||
| | fp8 | 65% | |||
| | bf16 | 64.9% | |||
| | dynamic fp8 | 64.8% | |||
| | bf16 | 64.8% | |||
| | fp8 | 64.3% | |||
| | bf16 | 64.2% | |||
| | fp8 | 63.5% | |||
| | bf16 | 63.4% | |||
| | fp8 | 63% | |||
| | nvfp4 | 62.9% | |||
| | 61.9% | ||||
| glm-4.7-flash | 60.2% | ||||
| | 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.
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.
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
- 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