Benchmark Almanac

StudentBench

Claude Opus 4.8 16.5 leads since September 2026
Not in model cards

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.

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.

Abstract of StudentBench: AI and human tutoring yield equivalent GRE learning gains (arXiv:2609.28470, CC0)
13
Entries on its own leaderboard, 11 models we track

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:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.8 xhigh 16.5
  2. 2 Gemini 3.1 Pro high 15.9
  3. 3 human 15.6
  4. 4 GPT-5.5 Pro med 15.2
  5. 5 Gemini 3.5 Flash low 14.7
  6. 6 Gemini 3.7 Flash medium 13.6
  7. 7 GPT-5.4 Mini none 13.2
  8. 8 Kimi K2.6 12.9
  9. 9 GPT-5.5 high 12.8
  10. 10 Gemma 4 31B IT high 12.7
  11. 11 Gemini 3.6 Flash low 12.7
  12. 12 Claude Opus 5 high 12.1
  13. 13 control 7.08

Source: Official StudentBench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.8 16.5 xhigh May 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 Gemini 3.5 Flash 14.7 low May 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Gemini 3.7 Flash 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 Gemma 4 31B IT 12.7 high Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Gemini 3.6 Flash 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.

12 percentage 14 percentage 16 percentage 18 percentage 20 percentage $0$20$40$60$80 Mean session cost ($), lower is better Learning gain (percentage points) Kimi K2.6: Learning gain 12.9 percentage points, mean session cost $0.59 GPT-5.5 (high): Learning gain 12.8 percentage points, mean session cost $2.79 GPT-5.5 Pro (med): Learning gain 15.2 percentage points, mean session cost $21.2 Claude Opus 4.8 (off): Learning gain 13.5 percentage points, mean session cost $4.43 Gemini 3.6 Flash (low): Learning gain 12.7 percentage points, mean session cost $0.92 Claude Opus 5 (high): Learning gain 12.1 percentage points, mean session cost $3.27 human: Learning gain 15.6 percentage points, mean session cost $75. Not in our model list Gemini 3.1 Pro (high): Learning gain 15.9 percentage points, mean session cost $1.94 GPT-5.4 Mini (none): Learning gain 13.2 percentage points, mean session cost $0.32 Gemma 4 31B IT (high): Learning gain 12.7 percentage points, mean session cost $0.07 Gemini 3.5 Flash (low): Learning gain 14.7 percentage points, mean session cost $1.04 Claude Opus 4.8 (xhigh): Learning gain 16.5 percentage points, mean session cost $4.16 Gemini 3.7 Flash (medium): Learning gain 13.6 percentage points, mean session cost $0.81 Claude Opus 4.8 (xhigh)Gemini 3.1 Pro (high)Gemini 3.5 Flash (low)Gemini 3.7 Flash (medium)GPT-5.4 Mini (none)Gemma 4 31B IT (high) 12 percentage 14 percentage 16 percentage 18 percentage 20 percentage $0$20$40$60$80 Mean session cost ($), lower is better Learning gain (percentage points) Kimi K2.6: Learning gain 12.9 percentage points, mean session cost $0.59 GPT-5.5 (high): Learning gain 12.8 percentage points, mean session cost $2.79 GPT-5.5 Pro (med): Learning gain 15.2 percentage points, mean session cost $21.2 Claude Opus 4.8 (off): Learning gain 13.5 percentage points, mean session cost $4.43 Gemini 3.6 Flash (low): Learning gain 12.7 percentage points, mean session cost $0.92 Claude Opus 5 (high): Learning gain 12.1 percentage points, mean session cost $3.27 human: Learning gain 15.6 percentage points, mean session cost $75. Not in our model list Gemini 3.1 Pro (high): Learning gain 15.9 percentage points, mean session cost $1.94 GPT-5.4 Mini (none): Learning gain 13.2 percentage points, mean session cost $0.32 Gemma 4 31B IT (high): Learning gain 12.7 percentage points, mean session cost $0.07 Gemini 3.5 Flash (low): Learning gain 14.7 percentage points, mean session cost $1.04 Claude Opus 4.8 (xhigh): Learning gain 16.5 percentage points, mean session cost $4.16 Gemini 3.7 Flash (medium): Learning gain 13.6 percentage points, mean session cost $0.81 Claude Opus 4.8 (xhigh)Gemini 3.1 Pro (high)Gemini 3.5 Flash (low)Gemini 3.7 Flash (medium)GPT-5.4 Mini (none)Gemma 4 31B IT (high)
ModelSettingLearning gainMean session cost
Claude Opus 4.8 xhigh 16.48 percentage points $4.16
Gemini 3.1 Pro high 15.94 percentage points $1.94
human 15.61 percentage points $75
GPT-5.5 Pro med 15.2 percentage points $21.24
Gemini 3.5 Flash low 14.65 percentage points $1.04
Gemini 3.7 Flash 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
Gemma 4 31B IT high 12.74 percentage points $0.07
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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.

Google DeepMind OpenAI Anthropic Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0.00 5.00 10.0 15.0 20.0 $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 4.8, xhigh Gemini 3.5 Flash, low Gemini 3.7 Flash, medium Gemma 4 31B IT, high 0.00 5.00 10.0 15.0 20.0 $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 4.8, xhigh Gemini 3.5 Flash, low

Source: Official StudentBench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 4.8 xhigh 16.5 $4.16
Gemini 3.1 Pro high 15.9 $1.94
GPT-5.5 Pro med 15.2 $21
Gemini 3.5 Flash low 14.7 $1.04
Gemini 3.7 Flash 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
Gemma 4 31B IT high 12.7 $0.07
Gemini 3.6 Flash 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.

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Sep 2026

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.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard
12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 2026 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 2026

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

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