Benchmark Almanac

TutorBench

Muse Spark 68.5% leads since April 2026
Not in model cards

Models act as tutors on three tasks: adaptive explanations for a confused student, feedback on student work, and hints. Graded against sample-specific rubrics.

Dataset card created October 7th, 2025.

Made by
Scale AI
Released
October 2025
Kind
Other
Level
University
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.4 Pro #19 on the capability index
Last model added
April 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

As students increasingly adopt large language models (LLMs) as learning aids, it is crucial to build models that are adept at handling the nuances of tutoring: they need to identify the core needs of students, be adaptive, provide personalized guidance, and be accurate. To this end, we introduce TutorBench, a dataset and evaluation benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the core tutoring skills of LLMs. The dataset comprises 1,490 samples curated by human experts, focused on high-school and AP-level curricula. The samples are drawn from three common tutoring tasks: (i) generating adaptive explanations tailored to a student's confusion, (ii) providing actionable feedback on a student's work, and (iii) promoting active learning through effective hint generation. To account for the inherent complexity of tutoring, samples are accompanied by sample-specific rubrics which are used to judge model responses during evaluation. TutorBench uses a reliable and fine-grained automatic evaluation method that uses an LLM-judge and the sample-specific rubrics. We evaluate 16 frontier LLMs on TutorBench and present a detailed analysis of their performance and behavior. Our results show that none of the frontier LLMs achieve a score of greater than 56%, showing a large room for improvement. We find that LLMs fall short in exhibiting the full range of tutoring skills needed to guide, diagnose, and support students effectively, with all the frontier models achieving less than a 60% pass rate on rubric criteria related to these skills. We also find that different model families exhibit varied strengths and limitations: the Claude models outperform others in supporting active learning, while they lag behind in the other two use cases. By releasing TutorBench, we provide a comprehensive and unsaturated benchmark to guide the development of the next-generation of AI tutors.

Abstract of TutorBench: A Benchmark To Assess Tutoring Capabilities Of Large Language Models (arXiv:2510.02663, CC0)
21
Entries on its own leaderboard, 20 models we track

Muse Spark leads with 68.5% among models released by April 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 April 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 Muse Spark 68.5%
  2. 2 GPT-5.4 Pro 56.6%
  3. 3 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 55.6%
  4. 4 GPT-5 55.3%
  5. 5 o3-pro 54.6%
  6. 6 Kimi K2.5 54.6%
  7. 7 GPT-5.1 thinking 54.1%
  8. 8 Claude Opus 4.6 max 53.7%
  9. 9 Gemini 3 Pro 53.7%
  10. 10 GPT-5.2 53.5%
  11. 11 Gemini 3.1 Pro 53%
  12. 12 o3 medium 52.8%
  13. 13 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 51.5%
  14. 14 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 51.2%
  15. 15 Claude Opus 4.1 thinking 50.8%
  16. 16 Claude Opus 4 thinking 49.7%
  17. 17 GPT-5.1 Instant 49.1%
  18. 18 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 49%
  19. 19 Claude 3.7 Sonnet thinking 46.5%
  20. 20 Llama 4 Maverick 40.2%
  21. 21 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 36.1%

Source: Official TutorBench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Muse Spark 68.5% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.4 Pro 56.6% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 55.6% Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5 55.3% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
5 o3-pro 54.6% Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Kimi K2.5 54.6% Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-5.1 54.1% thinking Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Opus 4.6 53.7% max Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Gemini 3 Pro 53.7% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-5.2 53.5% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Gemini 3.1 Pro 53% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
12 o3 52.8% medium Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 51.5% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Claude Opus 4.5 51.2% thinking Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Claude Opus 4.1 50.8% thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
16 Claude Opus 4 49.7% thinking May 2025 Official leaderboard
17 GPT-5.1 Instant 49.1% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Claude Sonnet 4.5 49% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
19 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 46.5% thinking Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
20 Llama 4 Maverick 40.2% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
21 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 36.1% Official leaderboard

Scores at each effort level

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
Claude Opus 4.6
non-thinking
53.7%
o3
medium
52.8%
Claude Opus 4.5
thinking
51.2%
Claude Opus 4.1
thinking
50.8%
Claude Opus 4
thinking
49.7%
Claude Sonnet 4.5
thinking
49%

Source: Official TutorBench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Muse Spark 68.5%
GPT-5.4 Pro 56.6%
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 55.6%
GPT-5 55.3%
o3-pro 54.6%
Kimi K2.5 54.6%
GPT-5.1 thinking 54.1%
Claude Opus 4.6 max 53.7%
Gemini 3 Pro 53.7%
Claude Opus 4.6 non-thinking 53.5%
GPT-5.2 53.5%
Gemini 3.1 Pro 53%
o3 medium 52.8%
o3 high 52.1%
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 51.5%
Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 51.2%
Claude Opus 4.1 thinking 50.8%
Claude Opus 4.5 49.8%
Claude Opus 4 thinking 49.7%
GPT-5.1 Instant 49.1%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 49%
Claude Opus 4.1 47.4%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet thinking 46.5%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 45.7%
Claude Opus 4 45.5%
Llama 4 Maverick 40.2%

3 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in October 2025

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

Google DeepMind OpenAI Meta
Own leaderboard Not tested since Apr 2026
Muse Spark 68.5%

Source: Official TutorBench 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% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Muse Spark GPT-5.4 Pro Gemini 2.5 Pro Claude 3.7 Sonnet 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Muse Spark GPT-5.4 Pro

Source: Official TutorBench 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