Vals Finance Agent v2.1
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.
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.
- 69.5 Claude Fable 5.2
- 67.8 Claude Opus 5.5
- 67.7
Gemini 4 Argon
- 67.6
Muse Wonder Full
- 67.5
Inkling 2 Small
- 67.3 Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 67.2
Gemini 4 Carbon
- 65.8
Gemini 3.8 Flash
- 65.5
Muse Wonder
- 65.4
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 65.4 Claude Haiku 5.5
- 65.1
Gemini 4 Hydrogen
- 65.0 GLM-5.3
- 64.7
Tencent Hy4
- 64.3 MiMo-V2.6 Pro
- 63.8
Muse Ember
- 63.3 MiMo-V2.6 Flash
- 62.9
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
- 61.8 GPT-6.1 Sol
- 61.7
Mistral Large 4
- 61.6
Tencent Hy4 preview
- 61.5 Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 61.4
Mistral Large 4 Preview
- 60.7
Muse Spark Open
- 60.6 GLM-5.3-Flash
- 60.6 Grok 4.7
- 60.4 GPT-6 Astra
- 60.0 Kimi K3
- 58.9
Step 5 Preview
- 58.8
Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
- 58.8
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- 57.1
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
- 56.8 GPT-6 Luna
- 56.0 GPT-6.1 Terra
- 54.7 Mercury 3
- 54.3
MiniMax-M3
- 51.8 Beam 1.0
- 49.9
Inkling
- 47.7
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
- 44.8
Inkling-Small
- 1 Claude Fable 5.2 69.5%
- 2 Claude Opus 5.5 67.8%
- 3
Gemini 4 Argon 67.7%
- 4
Muse Wonder Full 67.6%
- 5
Inkling 2 Small 67.5%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 5.5 67.3%
- 7
Gemini 4 Carbon 67.2%
- 8
Gemini 3.8 Flash 65.8%
- 9
Muse Wonder 65.5%
- 10
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 65.4%
- 11 Claude Haiku 5.5 65.4%
- 12
Gemini 4 Hydrogen 65.1%
- 13 GLM-5.3 65%
- 14
Tencent Hy4 64.7%
- 15 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 64.3%
- 16
Muse Ember 63.8%
- 17 MiMo-V2.6 Flash 63.3%
- 18
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 62.9%
- 19 GPT-6.1 Sol 61.8%
- 20
Mistral Large 4 61.7%
- 21
Tencent Hy4 preview 61.6%
- 22 Kimi K3.1 Pro 61.5%
- 23
Mistral Large 4 Preview 61.4%
- 24
Muse Spark Open 60.7%
- 25 GLM-5.3-Flash 60.6%
- 26 Grok 4.7 60.6%
- 27 GPT-6 Astra 60.4%
- 28 Kimi K3 60%
- 29
Step 5 Preview 58.9%
- 30
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 58.8%
- 31
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 58.8%
- 32
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 57.1%
- 33 GPT-6 Luna 56.8%
- 34 GPT-6.1 Terra 56%
- 35 Mercury 3 54.7%
- 36
MiniMax-M3 54.3%
- 37 Beam 1.0 51.8%
- 38
Inkling 49.9%
- 39
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47.7%
- 40
Inkling-Small 44.8%
Source: Official Vals Finance Agent v2.1 leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Fable 5.2 | 69.5% | Nov 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 67.8% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 67.7% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 67.6% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 67.5% | Nov 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 67.3% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 67.2% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 65.8% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 65.5% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 65.4% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | 65.4% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 65.1% | Nov 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | GLM-5.3 | 65% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 64.7% | Nov 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | MiMo-V2.6 Pro | 64.3% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 63.8% | Nov 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | MiMo-V2.6 Flash | 63.3% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | | 62.9% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | GPT-6.1 Sol | 61.8% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 61.7% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | | 61.6% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | 61.5% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | | 61.4% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 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 | | 58.9% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | | 58.8% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | | 58.8% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 32 | | 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 | | 54.3% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 37 | Beam 1.0 | 51.8% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 38 | | 49.9% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 39 | | 47.7% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 40 | | 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.
| Model | Setting | Accuracy | Latency (mean per test) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.2 | 69.5% | 207.62 s | |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 67.9% | 1,980 s | |
| | 67.7% | 793.03 s | |
| | 67.6% | 850.3 s | |
| | 67.5% | 296.33 s | |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 67.3% | 2,066 s | |
| | 67.2% | 1,780 s | |
| | 65.8% | 443.89 s | |
| | 65.6% | 310.13 s | |
| | 65.4% | 960.25 s | |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | 65.4% | 1,865 s | |
| | 65.1% | 1,078 s | |
| GLM-5.3 | 65% | 1,206 s | |
| | 64.7% | 2,239 s | |
| MiMo-V2.6 Pro | 64.3% | 682.01 s | |
| | 63.8% | 89.35 s | |
| MiMo-V2.6 Flash | 63.3% | 936.35 s | |
| | 62.9% | 909.21 s | |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 61.8% | 1,145 s | |
| | 61.7% | 387.15 s | |
| | 61.6% | 1,503 s | |
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | 61.5% | 2,099 s | |
| | 61.4% | 986.07 s | |
| | 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 | |
| | 58.9% | 542.51 s | |
| | 58.8% | 904.2 s | |
| | 58.8% | 3,320 s | |
| | 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 | |
| | 54.3% | 189.32 s | |
| Beam 1.0 | 51.8% | 85.43 s | |
| | 49.9% | 573.75 s | |
| | 47.7% | 79.47 s | |
| | 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.
Source: Official Vals Finance Agent v2.1 leaderboard
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.
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.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 2026 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| | 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.
Source: Official leaderboards
More 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%