Benchmark Almanac

VITA-Bench

Gemini 3 Flash 32.5% leads since December 2025
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 49.7% leads since February 2026
Fading

Agents handle multi-turn requests in simulated food delivery, in-store, and travel services with 66 tools. A rubric-based judge scores task success.

An updated version in January 2026 fixed data and the evaluator, so older scores differ.

Released
September 2025
Kind
Customer service
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Qwen3.7-Max #49 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

As LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed in real-life scenarios, existing benchmarks fail to capture their inherent complexity of handling extensive information, leveraging diverse resources, and managing dynamic user interactions. To address this gap, we introduce VitaBench, a challenging benchmark that evaluates agents on versatile interactive tasks grounded in real-world settings. Drawing from daily applications in food delivery, in-store consumption, and online travel services, VitaBench presents agents with the most complex life-serving simulation environment to date, comprising 66 tools. Through a framework that eliminates domain-specific policies, we enable flexible composition of these scenarios and tools, yielding 100 cross-scenario tasks (main results) and 300 single-scenario tasks. Each task is derived from multiple real user requests and requires agents to reason across temporal and spatial dimensions, utilize complex tool sets, proactively clarify ambiguous instructions, and track shifting user intent throughout multi-turn conversations. Moreover, we propose a rubric-based sliding window evaluator, enabling robust assessment of diverse solution pathways in complex environments and stochastic interactions. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals that even the most advanced models achieve only 30% success rate on cross-scenario tasks, and less than 50% success rate on others. Overall, we believe VitaBench will serve as a valuable resource for advancing the development of AI agents in practical real-world applications. The code, dataset, and leaderboard are available at https://vitabench.github.io/

Abstract of VitaBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents with Versatile Interactive Tasks in Real-world Applications (arXiv:2509.26490, CC0)
18
Models scored on its own leaderboard
16
Launch posts list it, from 4 labs
5
System cards report it, from 3 labs

Gemini 3 Flash leads with 32.5% among models released by January 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.

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads with 49.7%, 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 January 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 Gemini 3 Flash high 32.5%
  2. 2 Gemini 3 Pro high 31.5%
  3. 3 LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 thinking 29.3%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 28.5%
  5. 5 o3 high 26.3%
  6. 6 GPT-5.2 xhigh 24.3%
  7. 7 DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 24%
  8. 8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 23.5%
  9. 9 LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking 22.8%
  10. 10 o4-mini high 19.5%
  11. 11 Seed1.8 high 18.8%
  12. 12 GLM-4.7 thinking 18.3%
  13. 13 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025, thinking 14.5%
  14. 14 Qwen3-Max non-thinking 14.3%
  15. 15 Kimi K2 Thinking thinking 12.8%
  16. 16 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025, non-thinking 12.3%
  17. 17 Kimi K2 Sep 2025, non-thinking 11.5%
  18. 18 Qwen3-32B thinking 5.30%

Source: Official VITA-Bench leaderboard

Sources: Labs’ model cards and official VITA-Bench leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 3 Flash 32.5% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3 Pro 31.5% high Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
3 LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 29.3% thinking Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.5 28.5% thinking Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
5 o3 26.3% high Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5.2 24.3% xhigh Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-V3.2 24% thinking Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 23.5% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
9 LongCat-Flash-Chat 22.8% non-thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
10 o4-mini 19.5% high Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Seed1.8 18.8% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
12 GLM-4.7 18.3% thinking Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025 14.5% thinking Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen3-Max 14.3% non-thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Kimi K2 Thinking 12.8% thinking Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
16 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025 12.3% non-thinking Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 11.5% non-thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Qwen3-32B 5.30% thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 49.7% Feb 2026 Lab model card
2 Qwen3.7-Max 47.9% May 2026 Lab model card
3 Seed2.0 Pro 47% Feb 2026 Lab model card
4 Qwen3.7-Plus 45.6% Jun 2026 Lab model card
5 Qwen 3.6 Plus 44.3% Apr 2026 Lab model card
6 Qwen3.5-27B 41.9% Feb 2026 Lab model card
7 Qwen3-Max 40.9% Jan 2026 Lab model card
8 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 35.6% Apr 2026 Lab model card
9 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 33.6% Feb 2026 Lab model card
10 Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B 33.1% May 2026 Lab model card
11 Gemini 3 Flash 32.5% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 31.9% Feb 2026 Lab model card
13 Gemini 3 Pro 31.5% high Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen3.5-9B 29.8% Mar 2026 Lab model card
15 LongCat-Flash-Thinking 29.5% Sep 2025 Lab model card
16 LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 29.3% thinking Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Claude Opus 4.5 28.5% thinking Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
18 o3 26.3% high Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
19 LongCat-Flash-Chat 24.3% Aug 2025 Lab model card
20 GPT-5.2 24.3% xhigh Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
21 DeepSeek-V3.2 24% thinking Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
22 Claude Sonnet 4.5 23.5% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
23 Qwen3.5-4B 22% Mar 2026 Lab model card
24 o4-mini 19.5% high Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
25 Seed1.8 18.8% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
26 GLM-4.7 18.3% thinking Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
27 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025 14.5% thinking Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
28 Kimi K2 Thinking 12.8% thinking Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
29 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025 12.3% non-thinking Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
30 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 11.5% non-thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
31 Qwen3-32B 5.30% thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 16 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

More effort adds a median 24 points

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
Gemini 3 Pro
low
31.5%
Claude Opus 4.5
non-thinking thinking
28.5%
GPT-5.2
none xhigh
24.3%
DeepSeek-V3.2
non-thinking thinking
24%
Claude Sonnet 4.5
non-thinking thinking
23.5%
Seed1.8
non-thinking high
18.8%
GLM-4.7
non-thinking thinking
18.3%
Qwen3-32B
non-thinking
5.30%

Source: Official VITA-Bench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Gemini 3 Flash high 32.5%
Gemini 3 Pro high 31.5%
Gemini 3 Pro low 30%
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 thinking 29.3%
Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 28.5%
o3 high 26.3%
GPT-5.2 xhigh 24.3%
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 24%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 23.5%
Claude Opus 4.5 non-thinking 23.3%
LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking 22.8%
o4-mini high 19.5%
Seed1.8 high 18.8%
DeepSeek-V3.2 non-thinking 18.5%
GLM-4.7 thinking 18.3%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 non-thinking 17%
GLM-4.7 non-thinking 15.5%
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025 thinking 14.5%
Qwen3-Max non-thinking 14.3%
Seed1.8 non-thinking 13.8%
Kimi K2 Thinking thinking 12.8%
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025 non-thinking 12.3%
Kimi K2 Sep 2025 non-thinking 11.5%
Qwen3-32B thinking 5.30%
Qwen3-32B non-thinking 4.00%
GPT-5.2 none 0.80%

3 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in September 2025 7 models have held number one with claims included since its release in September 2025

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.

OpenAI Google DeepMind Meituan Qwen ByteDance Seed
Own leaderboard Replaced by VitaBench 2.0, May 2026
Lab claims Replaced by VitaBench 2.0, Jun 2026

Sources: Official VITA-Bench 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.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen3.5 397B-A17B Qwen3-Max Gemini 3 Flash o3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen3.5 397B-A17B Qwen3-Max

Sources: Official VITA-Bench 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.

Meituan
Qwen
ByteDance Seed
Kuaishou
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Jun 1, 2026 Qwen3.7-Plus 45.6 Vitabench (claude-4.5-sonnet judge)
May 25, 2026 Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B 33.1 VITA-Bench
May 20, 2026 Qwen3.7-Max 47.9 Vitabench
Apr 15, 2026 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 35.6 VITA-Bench (claude-4-sonnet judge)
Apr 2, 2026 Qwen 3.6 Plus 44.3 VITA-Bench
Mar 2, 2026 Qwen3.5-4B 22 VITA-Bench
Mar 2, 2026 Qwen3.5-9B 29.8 VITA-Bench
Feb 24, 2026 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 31.9 VITA-Bench
Feb 24, 2026 Qwen3.5-27B 41.9 VITA-Bench
Feb 24, 2026 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 33.6 VITA-Bench
Feb 16, 2026 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 49.7 VITA-Bench
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro 47 VitaBench
Jan 23, 2026 Qwen3-Max 40.9 Vita Bench
Jan 14, 2026 LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 29.3 VitaBench (Avg@4)
Sep 21, 2025 LongCat-Flash-Thinking 29.5 VitaBench
Aug 29, 2025 LongCat-Flash-Chat 24.3 VitaBench(avg@4)

5 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Jun 9, 2026 Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B technical report 33.1 VitaBench (Table 4) Capabilities
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 47 VitaBench (Table 11) Capabilities
Jan 23, 2026 LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 technical report 29.3 VitaBench (Avg@4), updated verifier (Table 2) Capabilities
Sep 23, 2025 LongCat-Flash-Thinking technical report 29.5 VitaBench (Table 2) Capabilities
Sep 1, 2025 LongCat-Flash-Chat technical report 24.3 VitaBench (avg@4) (Table 3) Capabilities

The lab's number comes out ahead in 2 of 2 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. 1 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap What differs
Qwen3-Max 40.9% Vita Bench 14.3% Leaderboard, non-thinking +27 pts The lab reports Qwen3-Max-Thinking, while the board evaluates Qwen3-Max without thinking.
LongCat-Flash-Chat 24.3% VitaBench(avg@4) 22.8% Leaderboard, non-thinking +1.5 pts
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 29.3% VitaBench (Avg@4) 29.3% Leaderboard, thinking 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.

OpenAI Google DeepMind Anthropic
VitaBench 2.0 Not tested since May 2026
VITA-Bench Replaced by VitaBench 2.0, May 2026
VitaBench 2.0 Not tested since May 2026

Source: Official leaderboards

More in Tool use

All 144 in Tool use
  • AutomationBench In use Agent completes end-to-end business workflows inside a simulated company exposing dozens of REST APIs. Graded on resulting state. Gemini 4 Carbon 53.9%
  • MCP Atlas In use Multi-step workflows over real MCP servers. Scores tool-use competency on realistic tasks. Gemini 4 Argon 90.7%
  • BFCL V4 In use Models call functions and tools, including multi-turn agentic tasks with web search and memory. Checked against expected calls and outcomes. Qwen3.7-Max 75%
  • τ³-bench Banking In use Agents act as banking customer-service reps over many turns with a simulated user, following policy. Pass^1 on the final database state. Qwen 3.8 Max 55.1%
  • Toolathlon-Verified In use 108 long-horizon tasks across 32 apps through about 600 MCP tools. Execution-based checkers inspect final environment state. GLM-5.3-Flash 78.4%
  • DeepSearchQA In use Questions that need multi-step search and synthesis. Final answers graded against references. Kimi K3 95%