Benchmark Almanac

Vals Finance Agent v2.1

Claude Fable 5.2 69.5% leads since November 2026
In use

Agents answer analyst-grade questions on public company filings, scored with dealbreaker-gated partial credit. A three-model jury grades answers and fails hedged ones.

Revises v2 with question and rubric fixes and a jury of GPT-6.1 Sol, Gemini 3.8 Flash and Claude Sonnet 5.5. Vals says scores are not comparable with v2. Part of Vals Index v2.2 from October 19th, 2026.

Made by
Vals AI
Released
October 2026
Kind
Finance
Level
Expert
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
Public, plus a private test set
Strongest model tested
Claude Fable 5.2 #1 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
November 2026
Last model added
November 2026
Scores refreshed
November 13th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has emerged as a transformative force in financial analysis and the finance industry, though significant questions remain about the full capabilities of Large Language Model (LLM) agents in this domain. We present the Finance Agent Benchmark, featuring challenging and diverse real-world finance research problems that require LLMs to perform complex analysis using recent SEC filings. We construct the benchmark using a taxonomy of nine financial task categories, developed in consultation with experts from banks, hedge funds, and private equity firms. The dataset includes 537 expert-authored questions covering tasks from information retrieval to complex financial modeling, each validated through a rigorous review process to ensure accuracy and relevance. Moreover, we implement an agentic harness that equips LLMs with tools sufficient to produce accurate responses, including Google Search and EDGAR database access. Overall, the Finance Agent Benchmark provides a comprehensive testbed for measuring the progress of LLM-driven finance agents. Our evaluation reveals significant limitations in current AI capabilities - even the best-performing model (OpenAI o3) achieved only 46.8% accuracy at an average cost of $3.79 per query. This underscores the need for further advancements before reliable deployment in high-stakes finance settings.

Abstract of Finance Agent Benchmark: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-world Financial Research Tasks (arXiv:2508.00828, CC0)
40
Models scored on its own leaderboard
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab

Claude Fable 5.2 leads with 69.5%

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 13th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart.

  1. 1 Claude Fable 5.2 69.5%
  2. 2 Claude Opus 5.5 67.8%
  3. 3 Gemini 4 Argon 67.7%
  4. 4 Muse Wonder Full 67.6%
  5. 5 Inkling 2 Small 67.5%
  6. 6 Claude Sonnet 5.5 67.3%
  7. 7 Gemini 4 Carbon 67.2%
  8. 8 Gemini 3.8 Flash 65.8%
  9. 9 Muse Wonder 65.5%
  10. 10 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 65.4%
  11. 11 Claude Haiku 5.5 65.4%
  12. 12 Gemini 4 Hydrogen 65.1%
  13. 13 GLM-5.3 65%
  14. 14 Tencent Hy4 64.7%
  15. 15 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 64.3%
  16. 16 Muse Ember 63.8%
  17. 17 MiMo-V2.6 Flash 63.3%
  18. 18 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 62.9%
  19. 19 GPT-6.1 Sol 61.8%
  20. 20 Mistral Large 4 61.7%
  21. 21 Tencent Hy4 preview 61.6%
  22. 22 Kimi K3.1 Pro 61.5%
  23. 23 Mistral Large 4 Preview 61.4%
  24. 24 Muse Spark Open 60.7%
  25. 25 GLM-5.3-Flash 60.6%
  26. 26 Grok 4.7 60.6%
  27. 27 GPT-6 Astra 60.4%
  28. 28 Kimi K3 60%
  29. 29 Step 5 Preview 58.9%
  30. 30 Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 58.8%
  31. 31 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 58.8%
  32. 32 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 57.1%
  33. 33 GPT-6 Luna 56.8%
  34. 34 GPT-6.1 Terra 56%
  35. 35 Mercury 3 54.7%
  36. 36 MiniMax-M3 54.3%
  37. 37 Beam 1.0 51.8%
  38. 38 Inkling 49.9%
  39. 39 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47.7%
  40. 40 Inkling-Small 44.8%

Source: Official Vals Finance Agent v2.1 leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Fable 5.2 69.5% Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Opus 5.5 67.8% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Gemini 4 Argon 67.7% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Muse Wonder Full 67.6% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Inkling 2 Small 67.5% Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Sonnet 5.5 67.3% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 4 Carbon 67.2% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Gemini 3.8 Flash 65.8% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Muse Wonder 65.5% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
10 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 65.4% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Haiku 5.5 65.4% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Gemini 4 Hydrogen 65.1% Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
13 GLM-5.3 65% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Tencent Hy4 64.7% Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
15 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 64.3% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Muse Ember 63.8% Nov 2026 Official leaderboard
17 MiMo-V2.6 Flash 63.3% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
18 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 62.9% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
19 GPT-6.1 Sol 61.8% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
20 Mistral Large 4 61.7% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
21 Tencent Hy4 preview 61.6% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
22 Kimi K3.1 Pro 61.5% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
23 Mistral Large 4 Preview 61.4% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
24 Muse Spark Open 60.7% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
25 GLM-5.3-Flash 60.6% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
26 Grok 4.7 60.6% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
27 GPT-6 Astra 60.4% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
28 Kimi K3 60% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
29 Step 5 Preview 58.9% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
30 Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 58.8% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
31 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 58.8% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
32 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 57.1% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
33 GPT-6 Luna 56.8% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
34 GPT-6.1 Terra 56% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
35 Mercury 3 54.7% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
36 MiniMax-M3 54.3% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
37 Beam 1.0 51.8% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
38 Inkling 49.9% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
39 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47.7% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
40 Inkling-Small 44.8% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

Accuracy against latency

The Vals scatter chart with its x axis switched from Cost to Latency: mean time per test against accuracy, on a log scale. The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.

40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 101001,00010K Latency (mean per test) (s), log scale, lower is better Accuracy MiniMax-M3: Accuracy 54.3%, latency (mean per test) 189 s Inkling: Accuracy 49.9%, latency (mean per test) 574 s Inkling-Small: Accuracy 44.8%, latency (mean per test) 314 s Kimi K3: Accuracy 60%, latency (mean per test) 875 s DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813: Accuracy 57.1%, latency (mean per test) 477 s GLM-5.3: Accuracy 65%, latency (mean per test) 1,206 s GLM-5.3-Flash: Accuracy 60.6%, latency (mean per test) 296 s Tencent Hy4 preview: Accuracy 61.6%, latency (mean per test) 1,503 s Qwen3.8 Max (0902): Accuracy 58.8%, latency (mean per test) 3,320 s Gemini 3.8 Flash: Accuracy 65.8%, latency (mean per test) 444 s GPT-6 Astra: Accuracy 60.4%, latency (mean per test) 1,229 s DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Accuracy 65.4%, latency (mean per test) 960 s Step 5 Preview: Accuracy 58.9%, latency (mean per test) 543 s Grok 4.7: Accuracy 60.6%, latency (mean per test) 652 s MiMo-V2.6 Flash: Accuracy 63.3%, latency (mean per test) 936 s MiMo-V2.6 Pro: Accuracy 64.3%, latency (mean per test) 682 s Claude Opus 5.5: Accuracy 67.8%, latency (mean per test) 1,980 s GPT-6 Luna: Accuracy 56.8%, latency (mean per test) 927 s Claude Sonnet 5.5: Accuracy 67.3%, latency (mean per test) 2,066 s GPT-6.1 Sol: Accuracy 61.8%, latency (mean per test) 1,145 s Gemini 4 Argon: Accuracy 67.7%, latency (mean per test) 793 s Mistral Large 4: Accuracy 61.7%, latency (mean per test) 387 s Mistral Large 4 Preview: Accuracy 61.4%, latency (mean per test) 986 s Claude Haiku 5.5: Accuracy 65.4%, latency (mean per test) 1,865 s Muse Wonder: Accuracy 65.5%, latency (mean per test) 310 s Muse Wonder Full: Accuracy 67.6%, latency (mean per test) 850 s Muse Spark Open: Accuracy 60.7%, latency (mean per test) 1,612 s DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Accuracy 62.9%, latency (mean per test) 909 s Mercury 3: Accuracy 54.7%, latency (mean per test) 233 s MiniMax-M3.1-Flash: Accuracy 58.8%, latency (mean per test) 904 s Kimi K3.1 Pro: Accuracy 61.5%, latency (mean per test) 2,099 s GPT-6.1 Terra: Accuracy 56%, latency (mean per test) 1,787 s Gemini 4 Carbon: Accuracy 67.2%, latency (mean per test) 1,780 s Tencent Hy4: Accuracy 64.7%, latency (mean per test) 2,239 s Inkling 2 Small: Accuracy 67.5%, latency (mean per test) 296 s Gemini 4 Hydrogen: Accuracy 65.1%, latency (mean per test) 1,078 s Beam 1.0: Accuracy 51.8%, latency (mean per test) 85.4 s Nemotron 3.5 Super VL: Accuracy 47.7%, latency (mean per test) 79.5 s Claude Fable 5.2: Accuracy 69.5%, latency (mean per test) 208 s Muse Ember: Accuracy 63.8%, latency (mean per test) 89.4 s Claude Fable 5.2Muse EmberBeam 1.0Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 101001,00010K Latency (mean per test) (s), log scale, lower is better Accuracy MiniMax-M3: Accuracy 54.3%, latency (mean per test) 189 s Inkling: Accuracy 49.9%, latency (mean per test) 574 s Inkling-Small: Accuracy 44.8%, latency (mean per test) 314 s Kimi K3: Accuracy 60%, latency (mean per test) 875 s DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813: Accuracy 57.1%, latency (mean per test) 477 s GLM-5.3: Accuracy 65%, latency (mean per test) 1,206 s GLM-5.3-Flash: Accuracy 60.6%, latency (mean per test) 296 s Tencent Hy4 preview: Accuracy 61.6%, latency (mean per test) 1,503 s Qwen3.8 Max (0902): Accuracy 58.8%, latency (mean per test) 3,320 s Gemini 3.8 Flash: Accuracy 65.8%, latency (mean per test) 444 s GPT-6 Astra: Accuracy 60.4%, latency (mean per test) 1,229 s DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Accuracy 65.4%, latency (mean per test) 960 s Step 5 Preview: Accuracy 58.9%, latency (mean per test) 543 s Grok 4.7: Accuracy 60.6%, latency (mean per test) 652 s MiMo-V2.6 Flash: Accuracy 63.3%, latency (mean per test) 936 s MiMo-V2.6 Pro: Accuracy 64.3%, latency (mean per test) 682 s Claude Opus 5.5: Accuracy 67.8%, latency (mean per test) 1,980 s GPT-6 Luna: Accuracy 56.8%, latency (mean per test) 927 s Claude Sonnet 5.5: Accuracy 67.3%, latency (mean per test) 2,066 s GPT-6.1 Sol: Accuracy 61.8%, latency (mean per test) 1,145 s Gemini 4 Argon: Accuracy 67.7%, latency (mean per test) 793 s Mistral Large 4: Accuracy 61.7%, latency (mean per test) 387 s Mistral Large 4 Preview: Accuracy 61.4%, latency (mean per test) 986 s Claude Haiku 5.5: Accuracy 65.4%, latency (mean per test) 1,865 s Muse Wonder: Accuracy 65.5%, latency (mean per test) 310 s Muse Wonder Full: Accuracy 67.6%, latency (mean per test) 850 s Muse Spark Open: Accuracy 60.7%, latency (mean per test) 1,612 s DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Accuracy 62.9%, latency (mean per test) 909 s Mercury 3: Accuracy 54.7%, latency (mean per test) 233 s MiniMax-M3.1-Flash: Accuracy 58.8%, latency (mean per test) 904 s Kimi K3.1 Pro: Accuracy 61.5%, latency (mean per test) 2,099 s GPT-6.1 Terra: Accuracy 56%, latency (mean per test) 1,787 s Gemini 4 Carbon: Accuracy 67.2%, latency (mean per test) 1,780 s Tencent Hy4: Accuracy 64.7%, latency (mean per test) 2,239 s Inkling 2 Small: Accuracy 67.5%, latency (mean per test) 296 s Gemini 4 Hydrogen: Accuracy 65.1%, latency (mean per test) 1,078 s Beam 1.0: Accuracy 51.8%, latency (mean per test) 85.4 s Nemotron 3.5 Super VL: Accuracy 47.7%, latency (mean per test) 79.5 s Claude Fable 5.2: Accuracy 69.5%, latency (mean per test) 208 s Muse Ember: Accuracy 63.8%, latency (mean per test) 89.4 s Claude Fable 5.2Muse EmberBeam 1.0Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
ModelSettingAccuracyLatency (mean per test)
Claude Fable 5.2 69.5% 207.62 s
Claude Opus 5.5 67.9% 1,980 s
Gemini 4 Argon 67.7% 793.03 s
Muse Wonder Full 67.6% 850.3 s
Inkling 2 Small 67.5% 296.33 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 67.3% 2,066 s
Gemini 4 Carbon 67.2% 1,780 s
Gemini 3.8 Flash 65.8% 443.89 s
Muse Wonder 65.6% 310.13 s
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 65.4% 960.25 s
Claude Haiku 5.5 65.4% 1,865 s
Gemini 4 Hydrogen 65.1% 1,078 s
GLM-5.3 65% 1,206 s
Tencent Hy4 64.7% 2,239 s
MiMo-V2.6 Pro 64.3% 682.01 s
Muse Ember 63.8% 89.35 s
MiMo-V2.6 Flash 63.3% 936.35 s
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 62.9% 909.21 s
GPT-6.1 Sol 61.8% 1,145 s
Mistral Large 4 61.7% 387.15 s
Tencent Hy4 preview 61.6% 1,503 s
Kimi K3.1 Pro 61.5% 2,099 s
Mistral Large 4 Preview 61.4% 986.07 s
Muse Spark Open 60.7% 1,612 s
GLM-5.3-Flash 60.6% 296.1 s
Grok 4.7 60.6% 652.29 s
GPT-6 Astra 60.4% 1,229 s
Kimi K3 60% 875.04 s
Step 5 Preview 58.9% 542.51 s
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 58.8% 904.2 s
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 58.8% 3,320 s
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 57.1% 476.99 s
GPT-6 Luna 56.8% 926.86 s
GPT-6.1 Terra 56% 1,787 s
Mercury 3 54.7% 232.76 s
MiniMax-M3 54.3% 189.32 s
Beam 1.0 51.8% 85.43 s
Inkling 49.9% 573.75 s
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47.7% 79.47 s
Inkling-Small 44.8% 314.22 s

The best score, 69.5%, costs $4.83 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. Inkling 2 Small comes within 1.9 points of the best for $0.18 a task, 27 times cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

Google DeepMind Meta Thinking Machines Anthropic Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Fable 5.2 Inkling 2 Small Muse Ember 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Fable 5.2 Inkling 2 Small

Source: Official Vals Finance Agent v2.1 leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Fable 5.2 69.5% $4.83
Claude Opus 5.5 67.8% $8.91
Gemini 4 Argon 67.7% $4.32
Muse Wonder Full 67.6% $2.68
Inkling 2 Small 67.5% $0.18
Claude Sonnet 5.5 67.3% $6.95
Gemini 4 Carbon 67.2% $7.29
Gemini 3.8 Flash 65.8% $1.99
Muse Wonder 65.5% $2.62
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 65.4% $0.37
Claude Haiku 5.5 65.4% $1.64
Gemini 4 Hydrogen 65.1% $4.36
GLM-5.3 65% $1.03
Tencent Hy4 64.7% $1.28
MiMo-V2.6 Pro 64.3% $0.18
Muse Ember 63.8% $0.06
MiMo-V2.6 Flash 63.3% $0.07
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 62.9% $0.47
GPT-6.1 Sol 61.8% $1.63
Mistral Large 4 61.7% $0.35
Tencent Hy4 preview 61.6% $0.67
Kimi K3.1 Pro 61.5% $2.29
Mistral Large 4 Preview 61.4% $0.52
Muse Spark Open 60.7% $2.76
GLM-5.3-Flash 60.6% $0.07
Grok 4.7 60.6% $2.24
GPT-6 Astra 60.4% $7.82
Kimi K3 60% $1.88
Step 5 Preview 58.9% $0.58
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 58.8% $2.99
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 58.8% $0.16
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 57.1% $0.82
GPT-6 Luna 56.8% $0.12
GPT-6.1 Terra 56% $1.92
Mercury 3 54.7% $0.06
MiniMax-M3 54.3% $0.30
Beam 1.0 51.8%
Inkling 49.9% $0.89
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47.7% $0.11
Inkling-Small 44.8% $0.21

2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in October 2026

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

Anthropic
Own leaderboard 2 leaders

Source: Official Vals Finance Agent v2.1 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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5.2 Gemini 3.8 Flash Kimi K3 MiniMax-M3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5.2 Kimi K3

Sources: Official Vals Finance Agent v2.1 leaderboard and labs’ model cards

One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

Thinking Machines
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Nov 5, 2026 Inkling 2 Small 67.5 Finance Agent v2.1, 67.5%

One lab claim next to the leaderboard

Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. 1 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
Inkling 2 Small 67.5% Finance Agent v2.1, 67.5% 67.5% Leaderboard Same

Versions

We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.

Anthropic OpenAI Google DeepMind Meta
Vals Finance Agent v2.1 18 leaders
Vals Finance Agent v1 Replaced by Agent, Feb 2026
Vals Finance Agent Replaced by v2, May 2026

Source: Official leaderboards

More in Law, finance and medicine

All 179 in Law, finance and medicine
  • MedXpertQA-MM In use Models answer expert-level medical exam questions that combine images with clinical records and test results. Scoring is accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 80.4%
  • HealthBench Professional In use 525 physician-authored tasks from real clinician chats (care consult, documentation, research) with physician-adjudicated rubrics. Claude Sonnet 5.5 69.2%
  • HealthBench In use 5,000 realistic health conversations graded against physician-written rubrics. A length-adjusted variant penalizes verbosity. GPT-5 67.2%
  • FinSearchComp In use Agents search the web to fetch live financial data, look up history, and run multi-step investigations, across 635 expert-written questions. Scored by answer accuracy. Ling-3.1-flash 81.7%
  • KBL In use Models answer Korean legal knowledge and reasoning tasks and Korean bar exam questions. It has 7 knowledge tasks, 4 reasoning tasks and 2,510 bar exam items. Solar Pro 4 77.5%
  • KorMedMCQA In use Models answer 7,469 multiple-choice questions from Korean licensing exams for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists, held from 2012 to 2024. Solar Pro 4 93.2%