Benchmark Almanac

TraceTrial-Bench

Claude Opus 5 77.6% leads since October 2026
Not in model cards

Agent harnesses, not only models, are tested on reliability across seven components, with traces used to attribute each failure to its cause.

203 upvotes on Hugging Face papers.

Made by
TraceLite AI
Released
October 2026
Kind
General assistants
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
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

LLM agents are increasingly used to solve real-world problems, and their effectiveness depends on both the underlying models and the harnesses that support their operation. However, most existing benchmarks focus on model capabilities and overall agent performance, with limited attention to the evaluation of agent harnesses. To address this gap, we introduce TraceTrial-Bench, which organizes harness reliability into seven components covering context, execution, governance, lifecycle, observability, tools, and verification. We construct 95 expert-level, mechanism-oriented tasks with executable or state-based ground truth to support semantically equivalent comparisons while preserving the native behavior of each harness. We design a Trajectory Tracing (TT) module to capture agent execution traces and introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that separately assesses agent performance and harness reliability. In addition, we design a Multi-source Evidence Acquisition (MEA) module to provide evidence from the agent context, harness, and execution environment for LLM-based evaluation, and develop a Failure Attribution (FA) module that uses explicit mechanism chains to support attribution at the run level. Across 4 harnesses, 9 models, and 95 tasks, our evaluation of 3,420 runs yields macro-averaged harness scores ranging from 59.8% to 72.0%, while 31.1% of runs achieve task success despite failing at least one harness criterion. TraceTrial-Bench provides an auditable and reproducible foundation for comparing agent harnesses, diagnosing their failures, and studying how harness design interacts with model behavior.

Abstract of Trial by Trace: Benchmarking AI Agent Harnesses for Reliability and Failure Attribution (arXiv:2610.32285, CC0)
9
Models scored on its own leaderboard

Claude Opus 5 leads with 77.6% among models released by August 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. Every run is in the next chart.

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 5 77.6%
  2. 2 Grok 4.6 76.7%
  3. 3 GPT-5.6 Sol 76.1%
  4. 4 GLM-5.3 74.6%
  5. 5 Gemini 3.7 Flash 74.5%
  6. 6 Kimi K3 74.4%
  7. 7 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 72%
  8. 8 Tencent Hy3 71.4%
  9. 9 Qwen 3.8 Max 70%

Source: Official TraceTrial-Bench leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 5 77.6% Claude Code Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Grok 4.6 76.7% Claude Code Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5.6 Sol 76.1% Claude Code Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
4 GLM-5.3 74.6% Claude Code Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 3.7 Flash 74.5% OpenClaw Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Kimi K3 74.4% Claude Code Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 72% OpenClaw Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Tencent Hy3 71.4% OpenClaw Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Qwen 3.8 Max 70% OpenClaw Aug 2026 Official leaderboard

Cost and overall performance

Costs exclude judge calls and discarded runs. 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% 70% 80% 90% 100% $0$0.5$1$1.5$2$2.5 Cost per task ($), lower is better Overall score DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Overall score 71.9%, cost per task $0.12 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Overall score 63.8%, cost per task $0.05 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Overall score 68.9%, cost per task $0.04 Tencent Hy3: Overall score 69.3%, cost per task $0.04 Tencent Hy3: Overall score 61.6%, cost per task $0.03 GPT-5.6 Sol: Overall score 76.1%, cost per task $0.81 GPT-5.6 Sol: Overall score 64.1%, cost per task $1.65 GPT-5.6 Sol: Overall score 71.8%, cost per task $0.36 GPT-5.6 Sol: Overall score 71.4%, cost per task $0.97 Kimi K3: Overall score 74.4%, cost per task $0.61 Kimi K3: Overall score 67.4%, cost per task $0.38 Claude Opus 5: Overall score 65.4%, cost per task $2.12 Claude Opus 5: Overall score 75.4%, cost per task $2.07 Claude Opus 5: Overall score 75%, cost per task $2.17 Qwen 3.8 Max: Overall score 69.3%, cost per task $0.52 Qwen 3.8 Max: Overall score 66.5%, cost per task $0.26 Qwen 3.8 Max: Overall score 67.2%, cost per task $0.28 Qwen 3.8 Max: Overall score 70%, cost per task $0.29 Grok 4.6: Overall score 66.2%, cost per task $0.46 Grok 4.6: Overall score 73.1%, cost per task $0.38 Grok 4.6: Overall score 69.9%, cost per task $0.82 Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overall score 71.9%, cost per task $0.25 Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overall score 67.9%, cost per task $0.23 Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overall score 72.3%, cost per task $0.42 Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overall score 74.5%, cost per task $0.77 GLM-5.3: Overall score 63.9%, cost per task $0.19 GLM-5.3: Overall score 68.8%, cost per task $0.18 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Overall score 72%, cost per task $0.09 Tencent Hy3: Overall score 65.2%, cost per task $0.02 Tencent Hy3: Overall score 71.4%, cost per task $0.04 Kimi K3: Overall score 72.4%, cost per task $0.23 Kimi K3: Overall score 73.7%, cost per task $0.35 Claude Opus 5: Overall score 77.6%, cost per task $0.66 Grok 4.6: Overall score 76.7%, cost per task $0.51 GLM-5.3: Overall score 74.6%, cost per task $0.41 GLM-5.3: Overall score 73%, cost per task $0.23 Claude Opus 5Grok 4.6GLM-5.3Kimi K3GLM-5.3Kimi K3DeepSeek-V4-ProTencent Hy3Tencent Hy3 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% $0$0.5$1$1.5$2$2.5 Cost per task ($), lower is better Overall score DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Overall score 71.9%, cost per task $0.12 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Overall score 63.8%, cost per task $0.05 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Overall score 68.9%, cost per task $0.04 Tencent Hy3: Overall score 69.3%, cost per task $0.04 Tencent Hy3: Overall score 61.6%, cost per task $0.03 GPT-5.6 Sol: Overall score 76.1%, cost per task $0.81 GPT-5.6 Sol: Overall score 64.1%, cost per task $1.65 GPT-5.6 Sol: Overall score 71.8%, cost per task $0.36 GPT-5.6 Sol: Overall score 71.4%, cost per task $0.97 Kimi K3: Overall score 74.4%, cost per task $0.61 Kimi K3: Overall score 67.4%, cost per task $0.38 Claude Opus 5: Overall score 65.4%, cost per task $2.12 Claude Opus 5: Overall score 75.4%, cost per task $2.07 Claude Opus 5: Overall score 75%, cost per task $2.17 Qwen 3.8 Max: Overall score 69.3%, cost per task $0.52 Qwen 3.8 Max: Overall score 66.5%, cost per task $0.26 Qwen 3.8 Max: Overall score 67.2%, cost per task $0.28 Qwen 3.8 Max: Overall score 70%, cost per task $0.29 Grok 4.6: Overall score 66.2%, cost per task $0.46 Grok 4.6: Overall score 73.1%, cost per task $0.38 Grok 4.6: Overall score 69.9%, cost per task $0.82 Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overall score 71.9%, cost per task $0.25 Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overall score 67.9%, cost per task $0.23 Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overall score 72.3%, cost per task $0.42 Gemini 3.7 Flash: Overall score 74.5%, cost per task $0.77 GLM-5.3: Overall score 63.9%, cost per task $0.19 GLM-5.3: Overall score 68.8%, cost per task $0.18 DeepSeek-V4-Pro: Overall score 72%, cost per task $0.09 Tencent Hy3: Overall score 65.2%, cost per task $0.02 Tencent Hy3: Overall score 71.4%, cost per task $0.04 Kimi K3: Overall score 72.4%, cost per task $0.23 Kimi K3: Overall score 73.7%, cost per task $0.35 Claude Opus 5: Overall score 77.6%, cost per task $0.66 Grok 4.6: Overall score 76.7%, cost per task $0.51 GLM-5.3: Overall score 74.6%, cost per task $0.41 GLM-5.3: Overall score 73%, cost per task $0.23 Claude Opus 5Grok 4.6GLM-5.3Kimi K3GLM-5.3Kimi K3DeepSeek-V4-ProTencent Hy3Tencent Hy3
ModelSettingOverall scoreCost per task
Claude Opus 5 Claude Code 77.6% $0.66
Grok 4.6 Claude Code 76.7% $0.51
GPT-5.6 Sol Claude Code 76.1% $0.81
Claude Opus 5 DeepSeek Harness 75.4% $2.07
Claude Opus 5 OpenClaw 75% $2.17
GLM-5.3 Claude Code 74.6% $0.41
Gemini 3.7 Flash OpenClaw 74.5% $0.77
Kimi K3 Claude Code 74.4% $0.61
Kimi K3 OpenClaw 73.7% $0.35
Grok 4.6 DeepSeek Harness 73.1% $0.38
GLM-5.3 DeepSeek Harness 73% $0.23
Kimi K3 DeepSeek Harness 72.4% $0.23
Gemini 3.7 Flash DeepSeek Harness 72.3% $0.42
DeepSeek-V4-Pro OpenClaw 72% $0.09
DeepSeek-V4-Pro Claude Code 71.9% $0.12
Gemini 3.7 Flash Claude Code 71.9% $0.25
GPT-5.6 Sol DeepSeek Harness 71.8% $0.36
Tencent Hy3 OpenClaw 71.4% $0.04
GPT-5.6 Sol OpenClaw 71.4% $0.97
Qwen 3.8 Max OpenClaw 70% $0.29
Grok 4.6 OpenClaw 69.9% $0.82
Tencent Hy3 Claude Code 69.3% $0.04
Qwen 3.8 Max Claude Code 69.3% $0.52
DeepSeek-V4-Pro DeepSeek Harness 68.9% $0.04
GLM-5.3 OpenClaw 68.8% $0.18
Gemini 3.7 Flash Codex 67.9% $0.23
Kimi K3 Codex 67.4% $0.38
Qwen 3.8 Max DeepSeek Harness 67.2% $0.28
Qwen 3.8 Max Codex 66.5% $0.26
Grok 4.6 Codex 66.2% $0.46
Claude Opus 5 Codex 65.4% $2.12
Tencent Hy3 DeepSeek Harness 65.2% $0.02
GPT-5.6 Sol Codex 64.1% $1.65
GLM-5.3 Codex 63.9% $0.19
DeepSeek-V4-Pro Codex 63.8% $0.05
Tencent Hy3 Codex 61.6% $0.03

The best score, 77.6%, costs $0.66 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. GLM-5.3 comes within 4.6 points of the best for $0.23 a task, 3 times cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

DeepSeek Tencent Moonshot AI Anthropic xAI Z.ai Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5 Kimi K3 GLM-5.3 DeepSeek-V4-Pro Tencent Hy3 Tencent Hy3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5 DeepSeek-V4-Pro

Source: Official TraceTrial-Bench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 5 Claude Code 77.6% $0.66 3,700
Grok 4.6 Claude Code 76.7% $0.51 7,200
GPT-5.6 Sol Claude Code 76.1% $0.81 4,700
Claude Opus 5 DeepSeek Harness 75.4% $2.07 16,900
Claude Opus 5 OpenClaw 75% $2.17 7,700
GLM-5.3 Claude Code 74.6% $0.41 13,900
Gemini 3.7 Flash OpenClaw 74.5% $0.77 10,600
Kimi K3 Claude Code 74.4% $0.61 4,800
Kimi K3 OpenClaw 73.7% $0.35 5,700
Grok 4.6 DeepSeek Harness 73.1% $0.38 11,900
GLM-5.3 DeepSeek Harness 73% $0.23 14,500
Kimi K3 DeepSeek Harness 72.4% $0.23 6,100
Gemini 3.7 Flash DeepSeek Harness 72.3% $0.42 11,600
DeepSeek-V4-Pro OpenClaw 72% $0.09 10,800
DeepSeek-V4-Pro Claude Code 71.9% $0.12 12,900
Gemini 3.7 Flash Claude Code 71.9% $0.25 10,300
GPT-5.6 Sol DeepSeek Harness 71.8% $0.36 2,600
Tencent Hy3 OpenClaw 71.4% $0.04 18,500
GPT-5.6 Sol OpenClaw 71.4% $0.97 5,100
Qwen 3.8 Max OpenClaw 70% $0.29 9,700
Grok 4.6 OpenClaw 69.9% $0.82 4,400
Tencent Hy3 Claude Code 69.3% $0.04 15,000
Qwen 3.8 Max Claude Code 69.3% $0.52 12,600
DeepSeek-V4-Pro DeepSeek Harness 68.9% $0.04 11,400
GLM-5.3 OpenClaw 68.8% $0.18 10,200
Gemini 3.7 Flash Codex 67.9% $0.23 13,100
Kimi K3 Codex 67.4% $0.38 7,700
Qwen 3.8 Max DeepSeek Harness 67.2% $0.28 14,200
Qwen 3.8 Max Codex 66.5% $0.26 13,400
Grok 4.6 Codex 66.2% $0.46 4,200
Claude Opus 5 Codex 65.4% $2.12 7,600
Tencent Hy3 DeepSeek Harness 65.2% $0.02 11,200
GPT-5.6 Sol Codex 64.1% $1.65 10,900
GLM-5.3 Codex 63.9% $0.19 8,200
DeepSeek-V4-Pro Codex 63.8% $0.05 13,000
Tencent Hy3 Codex 61.6% $0.03 13,700

Number one over time

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

Anthropic
Own leaderboard 1 leader

Source: Official TraceTrial-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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5

Source: Official TraceTrial-Bench 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 Tool use

All 144 in Tool use
  • AutomationBench In use Agent completes end-to-end business workflows inside a simulated company exposing dozens of REST APIs. Graded on resulting state. Gemini 4 Carbon 53.9%
  • MCP Atlas In use Multi-step workflows over real MCP servers. Scores tool-use competency on realistic tasks. Gemini 4 Argon 90.7%
  • BFCL V4 In use Models call functions and tools, including multi-turn agentic tasks with web search and memory. Checked against expected calls and outcomes. Qwen3.7-Max 75%
  • τ³-bench Banking In use Agents act as banking customer-service reps over many turns with a simulated user, following policy. Pass^1 on the final database state. Qwen 3.8 Max 55.1%
  • Toolathlon-Verified In use 108 long-horizon tasks across 32 apps through about 600 MCP tools. Execution-based checkers inspect final environment state. GLM-5.3-Flash 78.4%
  • DeepSearchQA In use Questions that need multi-step search and synthesis. Final answers graded against references. Kimi K3 95%