StudentBench
AI tutors teach real students GRE material and are scored by the students measured learning gains. A second study has expert tutors compare AI lesson plans and practice problems.
13 AI tutors and expert human tutors taught 2,383 participants. Handshake reports AI tutoring as statistically equivalent to expert human tutoring on GRE gains.
- Made by
- Handshake AI Research
- Released
- September 2026
- Kind
- Other
- Level
- University
- Scored
- Settled by events
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- Claude Opus 5 #10 on the capability index
- Last model added
- August 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Artificial intelligence offers an unprecedented opportunity to augment human capabilities, yet progress at the frontier has focused primarily on advancing model capabilities. We introduce StudentBench, a suite of AI teaching evaluations and a public platform that enables large-scale data collection with over 175,000 student-AI messages to study whether large language models (LLMs) produce learning gains equivalent to human tutoring. Using StudentBench, we measured learning gains on Quantitative and Verbal GRE questions across 2,383 human participants receiving AI tutoring, human tutoring, or no tutoring. We establish that AI tutoring is statistically equivalent to expert human tutoring for GRE learning gains (p = .015), and in five of the seven GRE domains, the best performing AI tutor surpassed the human tutor, on average. In a second study, expert human tutors compared LLM-generated lesson plans and practice problems through 2,028 pairwise rubric evaluations. Together, the two studies clearly separate AI tutors across: (1) lesson planning, (2) practice-problem creation, (3) conversational pedagogy, (4) cost, and (5) engagement. Surprisingly, one AI tutor achieved learning gains equivalent to human tutoring (p = .044) at 918 times lower cost (USD 0.0052 for AI versus USD 4.81 for human, per percentage point gained). For Quantitative GRE sessions, faster AI replies correlated with more student messages, more messages with more correct practice, and more correct practice with larger learning gains (all p < .002). To support future research, we open-source the de-identified data collected in our studies.
Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 16.5 among models released by August 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 August 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 13 more
- 1 Claude Opus 4.8 xhigh 16.5
- 2
Gemini 3.1 Pro high 15.9
- 3 human 15.6
- 4 GPT-5.5 Pro med 15.2
- 5
Gemini 3.5 Flash low 14.7
- 6
Gemini 3.7 Flash medium 13.6
- 7 GPT-5.4 Mini none 13.2
- 8 Kimi K2.6 12.9
- 9 GPT-5.5 high 12.8
- 10
Gemma 4 31B IT high 12.7
- 11
Gemini 3.6 Flash low 12.7
- 12 Claude Opus 5 high 12.1
- 13 control 7.08
Source: Official StudentBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 16.5 | xhigh | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 15.9 | high | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | human | 15.6 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | GPT-5.5 Pro | 15.2 | med | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 14.7 | low | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | | 13.6 | medium | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | GPT-5.4 Mini | 13.2 | none | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Kimi K2.6 | 12.9 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | GPT-5.5 | 12.8 | high | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 12.7 | high | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 12.7 | low | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | Claude Opus 5 | 12.1 | high | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | control | 7.08 | Official leaderboard |
Learning gain vs. session cost
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 | Learning gain | Mean session cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 | xhigh | 16.48 percentage points | $4.16 |
| | high | 15.94 percentage points | $1.94 |
| human | 15.61 percentage points | $75 | |
| GPT-5.5 Pro | med | 15.2 percentage points | $21.24 |
| | low | 14.65 percentage points | $1.04 |
| | medium | 13.61 percentage points | $0.81 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | off | 13.47 percentage points | $4.43 |
| GPT-5.4 Mini | none | 13.23 percentage points | $0.32 |
| Kimi K2.6 | 12.86 percentage points | $0.59 | |
| GPT-5.5 | high | 12.81 percentage points | $2.79 |
| | high | 12.74 percentage points | $0.07 |
| | low | 12.65 percentage points | $0.92 |
| Claude Opus 5 | high | 12.08 percentage points | $3.28 |
The best score, 16.5, costs $4.16 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. Gemini 3.1 Pro at high comes within 0.5 of the best for $1.94 a task, about half the cost. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
Source: Official StudentBench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 | xhigh | 16.5 | $4.16 | ||
| | high | 15.9 | $1.94 | ||
| GPT-5.5 Pro | med | 15.2 | $21 | ||
| | low | 14.7 | $1.04 | ||
| | medium | 13.6 | $0.81 | ||
| Claude Opus 4.8 | off | 13.5 | $4.43 | ||
| GPT-5.4 Mini | none | 13.2 | $0.32 | ||
| Kimi K2.6 | 12.9 | $0.59 | |||
| GPT-5.5 | high | 12.8 | $2.79 | ||
| | high | 12.7 | $0.07 | ||
| | low | 12.7 | $0.92 | ||
| Claude Opus 5 | high | 12.1 | $3.27 |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official StudentBench 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 StudentBench 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