Vals Finance Agent
Agents answer 537 financial analyst questions on public company SEC filings with search and filing tools. A three-vote GPT-5.2 judge grades each final answer.
Vals refreshed v1 in early 2026. AfterQuery checked the data, the judge moved to GPT-5.2 with a mode of three votes, and every model was rerun. Board frozen on June 4th, 2026.
- Made by
- Vals AI
- Released
- February 2026
- Kind
- Finance
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- Public, plus a private test set
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.4 Pro #19 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- June 2026, dropped for a newer version
- Last model added
- June 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 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 Opus 4.7 leads with 64.4% among models released by April 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.
Claude Opus 4.7 leads with 64.4%, claims included
Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.
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
- 64.4 Claude Opus 4.7
- 63.3 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 60.6
Muse Spark
- 60.4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 60.0 Claude Opus 4.6
- 60.0 GPT-5.5
- 59.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 58.8 Claude Opus 4.5
- 58.5 GPT-5.2
- 57.7 GLM-5.1
- 57.1 GPT-5.4
- 57.1 Kimi K2.6
- 55.3 GPT-5.1
- 55.1
Gemini 3 Pro
- 54.6
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 54.5 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 54.5
Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B)
- 53.8 Grok 4.3
- 53.5 Grok 4
- 53.4 GPT-5.4 Mini
- 53.2 GLM-5
- 52.8
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview)
- 52.5 Grok 4.1 Fast
- 52.3 Grok 4.20
- 52.1 GPT-5
- 51.9 GPT-5 mini
- 50.8
Gemma 4 31B IT
- 50.6 Kimi K2.5
- 48.4
MiniMax-M2.7
- 47.8 GPT-5.4 Nano
- 47.6
Gemini 3 Flash
- 46.9 Claude Haiku 4.5
- 46.1
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 46.1
Mistral Medium 3.5
- 46.1 Grok 4 Fast
- 46.0 GLM-4.7
- 45.6
Qwen 3.5 Flash (hosted 35B-A3B)
- 44.3
Qwen3-Max
- 41.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 38.6
MiniMax-M2.5
- 36.6 Kimi K2 Thinking
- 36.5 GLM-4.6
- 33.4
MiniMax-M2.1
- 21.5 gpt-oss-120b
- 18.1
Mistral Large 3
- 8.06 GPT-4o
- 4.23
Cohere Command A
- 2.35
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 0.37 Jamba 1.7 Large
- 1 Claude Opus 4.7 64.4%
- 2 Claude Sonnet 4.6 63.3%
- 3
Muse Spark 60.6%
- 4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 60.4%
- 5 Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 60%
- 6 GPT-5.5 60%
- 7
Gemini 3.1 Pro 59.7%
- 8 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 58.8%
- 9 GPT-5.2 58.5%
- 10 GLM-5.1 57.7%
- 11 GPT-5.4 xhigh 57.1%
- 12 Kimi K2.6 57.1%
- 13 GPT-5.1 55.3%
- 14
Gemini 3 Pro 55.1%
- 15
Qwen 3.6 Plus 54.6%
- 16 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 54.5%
- 17
Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B) thinking 54.5%
- 18 Grok 4.3 53.8%
- 19 Grok 4 53.5%
- 20 GPT-5.4 Mini 53.4%
- 21 GLM-5 thinking 53.2%
- 22
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) 52.8%
- 23 Grok 4.1 Fast reasoning 52.5%
- 24 Grok 4.20 reasoning 52.3%
- 25 GPT-5 52.1%
- 26 GPT-5 mini 51.9%
- 27
Gemma 4 31B IT 50.8%
- 28 Kimi K2.5 thinking 50.6%
- 29
MiniMax-M2.7 48.4%
- 30 GPT-5.4 Nano 47.8%
- 31
Gemini 3 Flash 47.6%
- 32 Claude Haiku 4.5 thinking 46.9%
- 33
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 46.1%
- 34
Mistral Medium 3.5 46.1%
- 35 Grok 4 Fast reasoning 46.1%
- 36 GLM-4.7 46%
- 37
Qwen 3.5 Flash (hosted 35B-A3B) 45.6%
- 38
Qwen3-Max 44.3%
- 39
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 41.6%
- 40
MiniMax-M2.5 38.6%
- 41 Kimi K2 Thinking 36.6%
- 42 GLM-4.6 36.5%
- 43
MiniMax-M2.1 33.4%
- 44 gpt-oss-120b 21.5%
- 45
Mistral Large 3 18.1%
- 46 GPT-4o Aug 2024 8.06%
- 47
Cohere Command A 4.23%
- 48
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 2.35%
- 49 Jamba 1.7 Large 0.37%
Source: Official Vals Finance Agent leaderboard
- 64.4 Claude Opus 4.7
- 63.3 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 61.5 GPT-5.4 Pro
- 60.7 Claude Opus 4.6
- 60.7
Seed2.1 Pro
- 60.6
Muse Spark
- 60.4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 60.1
Nemotron 3 Ultra
- 60.0 GPT-5.5
- 59.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 58.8 Claude Opus 4.5
- 58.5 GPT-5.2
- 57.7 GLM-5.1
- 57.1 GPT-5.4
- 57.1 Kimi K2.6
- 55.3 GPT-5.1
- 55.3 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 55.1
Gemini 3 Pro
- 54.6
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 54.5
Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B)
- 53.8 Grok 4.3
- 53.5 Grok 4
- 53.4 GPT-5.4 Mini
- 53.2 GLM-5
- 52.8
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview)
- 52.5 Grok 4.1 Fast
- 52.3 Grok 4.20
- 52.1 GPT-5
- 51.9 GPT-5 mini
- 50.8
Gemma 4 31B IT
- 50.6 Kimi K2.5
- 48.4
MiniMax-M2.7
- 47.8 GPT-5.4 Nano
- 47.6
Gemini 3 Flash
- 46.9 Claude Haiku 4.5
- 46.1
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 46.1
Mistral Medium 3.5
- 46.1 Grok 4 Fast
- 46.0 GLM-4.7
- 45.6
Qwen 3.5 Flash (hosted 35B-A3B)
- 44.3
Qwen3-Max
- 41.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 38.6
MiniMax-M2.5
- 36.6 Kimi K2 Thinking
- 36.5 GLM-4.6
- 33.4
MiniMax-M2.1
- 21.5 gpt-oss-120b
- 18.1
Mistral Large 3
- 8.06 GPT-4o
- 4.23
Cohere Command A
- 2.35
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 0.37 Jamba 1.7 Large
- 1 Claude Opus 4.7 64.4%
- 2 Claude Sonnet 4.6 63.3%
- 3 GPT-5.4 Pro 61.5%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.6 60.7%
- 5
Seed2.1 Pro 60.7%
- 6
Muse Spark 60.6%
- 7
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 60.4%
- 8
Nemotron 3 Ultra 60.1%
- 9 GPT-5.5 60%
- 10
Gemini 3.1 Pro 59.7%
- 11 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 58.8%
- 12 GPT-5.2 58.5%
- 13 GLM-5.1 57.7%
- 14 GPT-5.4 xhigh 57.1%
- 15 Kimi K2.6 57.1%
- 16 GPT-5.1 55.3%
- 17 Claude Sonnet 4.5 55.3%
- 18
Gemini 3 Pro 55.1%
- 19
Qwen 3.6 Plus 54.6%
- 20
Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B) thinking 54.5%
- 21 Grok 4.3 53.8%
- 22 Grok 4 53.5%
- 23 GPT-5.4 Mini 53.4%
- 24 GLM-5 thinking 53.2%
- 25
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) 52.8%
- 26 Grok 4.1 Fast reasoning 52.5%
- 27 Grok 4.20 reasoning 52.3%
- 28 GPT-5 52.1%
- 29 GPT-5 mini 51.9%
- 30
Gemma 4 31B IT 50.8%
- 31 Kimi K2.5 thinking 50.6%
- 32
MiniMax-M2.7 48.4%
- 33 GPT-5.4 Nano 47.8%
- 34
Gemini 3 Flash 47.6%
- 35 Claude Haiku 4.5 thinking 46.9%
- 36
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 46.1%
- 37
Mistral Medium 3.5 46.1%
- 38 Grok 4 Fast reasoning 46.1%
- 39 GLM-4.7 46%
- 40
Qwen 3.5 Flash (hosted 35B-A3B) 45.6%
- 41
Qwen3-Max 44.3%
- 42
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 41.6%
- 43
MiniMax-M2.5 38.6%
- 44 Kimi K2 Thinking 36.6%
- 45 GLM-4.6 36.5%
- 46
MiniMax-M2.1 33.4%
- 47 gpt-oss-120b 21.5%
- 48
Mistral Large 3 18.1%
- 49 GPT-4o Aug 2024 8.06%
- 50
Cohere Command A 4.23%
- 51
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 2.35%
- 52 Jamba 1.7 Large 0.37%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official Vals Finance Agent leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 64.4% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 63.3% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 60.6% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 60.4% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 60% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | GPT-5.5 | 60% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 59.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 58.8% | thinking | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | GPT-5.2 | 58.5% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | GLM-5.1 | 57.7% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | GPT-5.4 | 57.1% | xhigh | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | Kimi K2.6 | 57.1% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | GPT-5.1 | 55.3% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 55.1% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 54.6% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 54.5% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | | 54.5% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | Grok 4.3 | 53.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | Grok 4 | 53.5% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | GPT-5.4 Mini | 53.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | GLM-5 | 53.2% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 22 | | 52.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | Grok 4.1 Fast | 52.5% | reasoning | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 24 | Grok 4.20 | 52.3% | reasoning | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 25 | GPT-5 | 52.1% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | GPT-5 mini | 51.9% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | | 50.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | Kimi K2.5 | 50.6% | thinking | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 29 | | 48.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | GPT-5.4 Nano | 47.8% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | | 47.6% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 32 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | 46.9% | thinking | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 33 | | 46.1% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 34 | | 46.1% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 35 | Grok 4 Fast | 46.1% | reasoning | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 36 | GLM-4.7 | 46% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 37 | | 45.6% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 38 | | 44.3% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 39 | | 41.6% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 40 | | 38.6% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 41 | Kimi K2 Thinking | 36.6% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 42 | GLM-4.6 | 36.5% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 43 | | 33.4% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 44 | gpt-oss-120b | 21.5% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 45 | | 18.1% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 46 | GPT-4o Aug 2024 | 8.06% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 47 | | 4.23% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 48 | | 2.35% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 49 | Jamba 1.7 Large | 0.37% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 64.4% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 63.3% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | GPT-5.4 Pro | 61.5% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 60.7% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | | 60.7% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | | 60.6% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 60.4% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 60.1% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | GPT-5.5 | 60% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 10 | | 59.7% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 58.8% | thinking | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | GPT-5.2 | 58.5% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | GLM-5.1 | 57.7% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | GPT-5.4 | 57.1% | xhigh | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | Kimi K2.6 | 57.1% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | GPT-5.1 | 55.3% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 55.3% | Sep 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 18 | | 55.1% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 54.6% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 54.5% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | Grok 4.3 | 53.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | Grok 4 | 53.5% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | GPT-5.4 Mini | 53.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | GLM-5 | 53.2% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 25 | | 52.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | Grok 4.1 Fast | 52.5% | reasoning | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 27 | Grok 4.20 | 52.3% | reasoning | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 28 | GPT-5 | 52.1% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | GPT-5 mini | 51.9% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | | 50.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | Kimi K2.5 | 50.6% | thinking | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 32 | | 48.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 33 | GPT-5.4 Nano | 47.8% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 34 | | 47.6% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 35 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | 46.9% | thinking | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 36 | | 46.1% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 37 | | 46.1% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 38 | Grok 4 Fast | 46.1% | reasoning | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 39 | GLM-4.7 | 46% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 40 | | 45.6% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 41 | | 44.3% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 42 | | 41.6% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 43 | | 38.6% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 44 | Kimi K2 Thinking | 36.6% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 45 | GLM-4.6 | 36.5% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 46 | | 33.4% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 47 | gpt-oss-120b | 21.5% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 48 | | 18.1% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 49 | GPT-4o Aug 2024 | 8.06% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 50 | | 4.23% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 51 | | 2.35% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 52 | Jamba 1.7 Large | 0.37% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 10 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
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 Opus 4.7 | 64.4% | 271.06 s | |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 63.3% | 349 s | |
| | 60.6% | 418.14 s | |
| | 60.4% | 588.44 s | |
| Claude Opus 4.6 | thinking | 60.1% | 289.73 s |
| GPT-5.5 | 60% | 855.16 s | |
| | 59.7% | 265.72 s | |
| Claude Opus 4.5 | thinking | 58.8% | 181.87 s |
| GPT-5.2 | 58.5% | 585.41 s | |
| GLM-5.1 | 57.7% | 501.81 s | |
| GPT-5.4 | xhigh | 57.2% | 656.67 s |
| Kimi K2.6 | 57.1% | 1,506 s | |
| GPT-5.1 | 55.3% | 578.06 s | |
| | 55.2% | 183.62 s | |
| | 54.6% | 327.76 s | |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | thinking | 54.5% | 202.07 s |
| | thinking | 54.5% | 360.48 s |
| Grok 4.3 | 53.8% | 795.92 s | |
| Grok 4 | 53.5% | 321.04 s | |
| GPT-5.4 Mini | 53.4% | 876.25 s | |
| GLM-5 | thinking | 53.2% | 564.09 s |
| | 52.8% | 1,839 s | |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | reasoning | 52.5% | 90.58 s |
| Grok 4.20 | reasoning | 52.3% | 127.03 s |
| GPT-5 | 52.2% | 926.61 s | |
| GPT-5 mini | 51.9% | 643.51 s | |
| | 50.8% | 5,360 s | |
| Kimi K2.5 | thinking | 50.6% | 268.75 s |
| | 48.4% | 1,293 s | |
| GPT-5.4 Nano | 47.8% | 283.8 s | |
| | 47.6% | 876.09 s | |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | thinking | 46.9% | 117.94 s |
| | 46.1% | 102.44 s | |
| | 46.1% | 562.19 s | |
| Grok 4 Fast | reasoning | 46.1% | 58.8 s |
| GLM-4.7 | 46% | 605 s | |
| | 45.6% | 248.89 s | |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | non-reasoning | 44.4% | 93.21 s |
| | 44.3% | 315.36 s | |
| | 41.6% | 1,840 s | |
| | 38.6% | 1,355 s | |
| Kimi K2 Thinking | 36.7% | 666.53 s | |
| GLM-4.6 | 36.5% | 736.03 s | |
| | 33.4% | 1,301 s | |
| gpt-oss-120b | 21.5% | 185.07 s | |
| | 18.1% | 91.15 s | |
| GPT-4o Aug 2024 | 8.1% | 31.14 s | |
| | 4.2% | 573.22 s | |
| | thinking | 2.4% | 1,722 s |
| Jamba 1.7 Large | 0.4% | 2,331 s | |
| | non-thinking | 0% | 100.62 s |
The best score, 64.4%, costs $0.80 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
Source: Official Vals Finance Agent leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.7 | 64.4% | $0.80 | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 63.3% | $1.44 | |||
| | 60.6% | ||||
| | 60.4% | $0.59 | |||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | thinking | 60% | $1.11 | ||
| GPT-5.5 | 60% | $1.33 | |||
| | 59.7% | $0.87 | |||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | thinking | 58.8% | $1.50 | ||
| GPT-5.2 | 58.5% | $0.98 | |||
| GLM-5.1 | 57.7% | $0.29 | |||
| GPT-5.4 | xhigh | 57.1% | $1.41 | ||
| Kimi K2.6 | 57.1% | $0.49 | |||
| GPT-5.1 | 55.3% | $0.47 | |||
| | 55.1% | $0.56 | |||
| | 54.6% | $0.15 | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | thinking | 54.5% | $1.10 | ||
| | thinking | 54.5% | $0.24 | ||
| Grok 4.3 | 53.8% | $0.44 | |||
| Grok 4 | 53.5% | $1.07 | |||
| GPT-5.4 Mini | 53.4% | $0.49 | |||
| GLM-5 | thinking | 53.2% | $0.50 | ||
| | 52.8% | $0.59 | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | reasoning | 52.5% | $0.06 | ||
| Grok 4.20 | reasoning | 52.3% | $0.36 | ||
| GPT-5 | 52.1% | $0.59 | |||
| GPT-5 mini | 51.9% | $0.14 | |||
| | 50.8% | ||||
| Kimi K2.5 | thinking | 50.6% | $0.18 | ||
| | 48.4% | $0.16 | |||
| GPT-5.4 Nano | 47.8% | $0.01 | |||
| | 47.6% | $0.37 | |||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | thinking | 46.9% | $0.38 | ||
| | 46.1% | $0.07 | |||
| | 46.1% | $1.15 | |||
| Grok 4 Fast | reasoning | 46.1% | $0.05 | ||
| GLM-4.7 | 46% | $0.24 | |||
| | 45.6% | $0.05 | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | non-reasoning | 44.4% | $0.09 | ||
| | 44.3% | $0.80 | |||
| | 41.6% | $0.34 | |||
| | 38.6% | $0.16 | |||
| Kimi K2 Thinking | 36.6% | $0.25 | |||
| GLM-4.6 | 36.5% | $0.19 | |||
| | 33.4% | $0.11 | |||
| gpt-oss-120b | 21.5% | $0.06 | |||
| | 18.1% | $0.09 | |||
| GPT-4o Aug 2024 | 8.06% | $0.16 | |||
| | 4.23% | $2.34 | |||
| | thinking | 2.35% | $0.21 | ||
| Jamba 1.7 Large | 0.37% | $5.04 | |||
| | non-thinking | 0% | $0.04 |
4 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in February 2026 4 models have held number one with claims included since its release in February 2026
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.
Sources: Official Vals Finance Agent leaderboard and labs’ model cards
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 leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Labs headline it less often now, last in June 2026
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2026 | 60.1 | Vals.ai Financial Agent 1.1 without web search (with web search 53.7) | |
| Apr 23, 2026 | GPT-5.5 | 60 | FinanceAgent v1.1 |
| Apr 16, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 64.4 | Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v1.1 |
| Mar 5, 2026 | GPT-5.4 Pro | 61.5 | FinanceAgent v1.1 |
| Mar 5, 2026 | GPT-5.4 | 56 | FinanceAgent v1.1 (GPT-5.4) |
| Feb 17, 2026 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 63.3 | Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v1.1 |
| Feb 5, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 60.7 | Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent |
| Sep 29, 2025 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 55.3 | Financial analysis Finance Agent |
6 system cards report it, from 3 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2026 | | 60.7 | Finance Agent v1.1 (Table 1) | Capabilities |
| Jun 9, 2026 | | 60.1 | Vals.ai Financial Agent 1.1 without web search, 53.7 with web search (Table 10) | Capabilities |
| Apr 16, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.7 system card | 64.4 | Finance Agent (Vals AI), adaptive thinking at high effort, run by Vals AI (Table 8.1.A, 8.10.2) | Capabilities |
| Feb 17, 2026 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 system card | 63.3 | Finance Agent (Vals AI), Max Thinking; 61.40 at High Thinking (Table 2.12.2.A) | Capabilities |
| Feb 5, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.6 system card | 60.7 | Finance Agent (Vals AI), evaluated by Vals AI, adaptive thinking, max effort (2.14.3) | Capabilities |
| Nov 24, 2025 | Claude Opus 4.5 system card | 55.2 | FinanceAgent (Vals AI), external Vals AI analysis, 64k thinking, 200k context, avg of 8 trials (2.13; internal testing 61.07% same settings, 61.03% with 1M context) | Capabilities |
The lab's number comes out ahead in 2 of 4 pairs that differ
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. 3 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.
| Model | Lab says | Board says | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.5 | 55.2% FinanceAgent (Vals AI), external Vals AI analysis, 64k thinking, 200k context, avg of 8 trials (2.13; internal testing 61.07% same settings, 61.03% with 1M context) | 58.8% Leaderboard, thinking | −3.6 pts |
| GPT-5.4 | 56% FinanceAgent v1.1 (GPT-5.4) | 57.1% Leaderboard, xhigh | −1.1 pts |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 55.3% Financial analysis Finance Agent | 54.5% Leaderboard, thinking | +0.8 pts |
| Claude Opus 4.6 | 60.7% Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent | 60% Leaderboard, thinking | +0.7 pts |
| GPT-5.5 | 60% FinanceAgent v1.1 | 60% Leaderboard | Same |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 63.3% Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v1.1 | 63.3% Leaderboard | Same |
| Claude Opus 4.7 | 64.4% Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v1.1 | 64.4% 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%