TutorBench
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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 15 more
- 68.5
Muse Spark
- 56.6 GPT-5.4 Pro
- 55.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 55.3 GPT-5
- 54.6 o3-pro
- 54.6 Kimi K2.5
- 54.1 GPT-5.1
- 53.7 Claude Opus 4.6
- 53.7
Gemini 3 Pro
- 53.5 GPT-5.2
- 53.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 52.8 o3
- 51.5
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 51.2 Claude Opus 4.5
- 50.8 Claude Opus 4.1
- 49.7 Claude Opus 4
- 49.1 GPT-5.1 Instant
- 49.0 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 46.5 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 40.2
Llama 4 Maverick
- 36.1 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified)
- 1
Muse Spark 68.5%
- 2 GPT-5.4 Pro 56.6%
- 3
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 55.6%
- 4 GPT-5 55.3%
- 5 o3-pro 54.6%
- 6 Kimi K2.5 54.6%
- 7 GPT-5.1 thinking 54.1%
- 8 Claude Opus 4.6 max 53.7%
- 9
Gemini 3 Pro 53.7%
- 10 GPT-5.2 53.5%
- 11
Gemini 3.1 Pro 53%
- 12 o3 medium 52.8%
- 13
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 51.5%
- 14 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 51.2%
- 15 Claude Opus 4.1 thinking 50.8%
- 16 Claude Opus 4 thinking 49.7%
- 17 GPT-5.1 Instant 49.1%
- 18 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 49%
- 19 Claude 3.7 Sonnet thinking 46.5%
- 20
Llama 4 Maverick 40.2%
- 21 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 36.1%
Source: Official TutorBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 68.5% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-5.4 Pro | 56.6% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 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 | | 53.7% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | GPT-5.2 | 53.5% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 53% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | o3 | 52.8% | medium | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 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 | | 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.
Source: Official TutorBench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | 68.5% | ||||
| GPT-5.4 Pro | 56.6% | ||||
| | 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% | |||
| | 53.7% | ||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | non-thinking | 53.5% | |||
| GPT-5.2 | 53.5% | ||||
| | 53% | ||||
| o3 | medium | 52.8% | |||
| o3 | high | 52.1% | |||
| | 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% | ||||
| | 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.
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.
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
- 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