VITA-Bench
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.
- Made by
- Meituan LongCat team
- 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/
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 32.5
Gemini 3 Flash
- 31.5
Gemini 3 Pro
- 29.3
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
- 28.5 Claude Opus 4.5
- 26.3 o3
- 24.3 GPT-5.2
- 24.0
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 23.5 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 22.8
LongCat-Flash-Chat
- 19.5 o4-mini
- 18.8
Seed1.8
- 18.3 GLM-4.7
- 14.5
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking
- 14.3
Qwen3-Max
- 12.8 Kimi K2 Thinking
- 12.3
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct
- 11.5 Kimi K2
- 5.30
Qwen3-32B
- 1
Gemini 3 Flash high 32.5%
- 2
Gemini 3 Pro high 31.5%
- 3
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 thinking 29.3%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 28.5%
- 5 o3 high 26.3%
- 6 GPT-5.2 xhigh 24.3%
- 7
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 24%
- 8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 23.5%
- 9
LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking 22.8%
- 10 o4-mini high 19.5%
- 11
Seed1.8 high 18.8%
- 12 GLM-4.7 thinking 18.3%
- 13
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025, thinking 14.5%
- 14
Qwen3-Max non-thinking 14.3%
- 15 Kimi K2 Thinking thinking 12.8%
- 16
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025, non-thinking 12.3%
- 17 Kimi K2 Sep 2025, non-thinking 11.5%
- 18
Qwen3-32B thinking 5.30%
Source: Official VITA-Bench leaderboard
- 49.7
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
- 47.9
Qwen3.7-Max
- 47.0
Seed2.0 Pro
- 45.6
Qwen3.7-Plus
- 44.3
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 41.9
Qwen3.5-27B
- 40.9
Qwen3-Max
- 35.6
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B
- 33.6
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- 33.1
Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B
- 32.5
Gemini 3 Flash
- 31.9
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
- 31.5
Gemini 3 Pro
- 29.8
Qwen3.5-9B
- 29.5
LongCat-Flash-Thinking
- 29.3
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
- 28.5 Claude Opus 4.5
- 26.3 o3
- 24.3
LongCat-Flash-Chat
- 24.3 GPT-5.2
- 24.0
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 23.5 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 22.0
Qwen3.5-4B
- 19.5 o4-mini
- 18.8
Seed1.8
- 18.3 GLM-4.7
- 14.5
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking
- 12.8 Kimi K2 Thinking
- 12.3
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct
- 11.5 Kimi K2
- 5.30
Qwen3-32B
- 1
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 49.7%
- 2
Qwen3.7-Max 47.9%
- 3
Seed2.0 Pro 47%
- 4
Qwen3.7-Plus 45.6%
- 5
Qwen 3.6 Plus 44.3%
- 6
Qwen3.5-27B 41.9%
- 7
Qwen3-Max 40.9%
- 8
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 35.6%
- 9
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 33.6%
- 10
Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B 33.1%
- 11
Gemini 3 Flash high 32.5%
- 12
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 31.9%
- 13
Gemini 3 Pro high 31.5%
- 14
Qwen3.5-9B 29.8%
- 15
LongCat-Flash-Thinking 29.5%
- 16
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 thinking 29.3%
- 17 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 28.5%
- 18 o3 high 26.3%
- 19
LongCat-Flash-Chat 24.3%
- 20 GPT-5.2 xhigh 24.3%
- 21
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 24%
- 22 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 23.5%
- 23
Qwen3.5-4B 22%
- 24 o4-mini high 19.5%
- 25
Seed1.8 high 18.8%
- 26 GLM-4.7 thinking 18.3%
- 27
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025, thinking 14.5%
- 28 Kimi K2 Thinking thinking 12.8%
- 29
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025, non-thinking 12.3%
- 30 Kimi K2 Sep 2025, non-thinking 11.5%
- 31
Qwen3-32B thinking 5.30%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official VITA-Bench leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 32.5% | high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 31.5% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 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 | | 24% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 23.5% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | | 22.8% | non-thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | o4-mini | 19.5% | high | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 18.8% | high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | GLM-4.7 | 18.3% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 14.5% | thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 14.3% | non-thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | Kimi K2 Thinking | 12.8% | thinking | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | | 12.3% | non-thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | 11.5% | non-thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | | 5.30% | thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 49.7% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 47.9% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 47% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 45.6% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | | 44.3% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | | 41.9% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | | 40.9% | Jan 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | | 35.6% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | | 33.6% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 10 | | 33.1% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 11 | | 32.5% | high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 31.9% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 13 | | 31.5% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 29.8% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 15 | | 29.5% | Sep 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 16 | | 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 | | 24.3% | Aug 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 20 | GPT-5.2 | 24.3% | xhigh | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | | 24% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 22 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 23.5% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | | 22% | Mar 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 24 | o4-mini | 19.5% | high | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 25 | | 18.8% | high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 26 | GLM-4.7 | 18.3% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 27 | | 14.5% | thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 28 | Kimi K2 Thinking | 12.8% | thinking | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 29 | | 12.3% | non-thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 30 | Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | 11.5% | non-thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 31 | | 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.
Source: Official VITA-Bench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | high | 32.5% | |||
| | high | 31.5% | |||
| | low | 30% | |||
| | thinking | 29.3% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | thinking | 28.5% | |||
| o3 | high | 26.3% | |||
| GPT-5.2 | xhigh | 24.3% | |||
| | thinking | 24% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | thinking | 23.5% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | non-thinking | 23.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | 22.8% | |||
| o4-mini | high | 19.5% | |||
| | high | 18.8% | |||
| | non-thinking | 18.5% | |||
| GLM-4.7 | thinking | 18.3% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | non-thinking | 17% | |||
| GLM-4.7 | non-thinking | 15.5% | |||
| | thinking | 14.5% | |||
| | non-thinking | 14.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | 13.8% | |||
| Kimi K2 Thinking | thinking | 12.8% | |||
| | non-thinking | 12.3% | |||
| Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | non-thinking | 11.5% | |||
| | thinking | 5.30% | |||
| | 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.
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.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2026 | 45.6 | Vitabench (claude-4.5-sonnet judge) | |
| May 25, 2026 | 33.1 | VITA-Bench | |
| May 20, 2026 | 47.9 | Vitabench | |
| Apr 15, 2026 | 35.6 | VITA-Bench (claude-4-sonnet judge) | |
| Apr 2, 2026 | 44.3 | VITA-Bench | |
| Mar 2, 2026 | 22 | VITA-Bench | |
| Mar 2, 2026 | 29.8 | VITA-Bench | |
| Feb 24, 2026 | 31.9 | VITA-Bench | |
| Feb 24, 2026 | 41.9 | VITA-Bench | |
| Feb 24, 2026 | 33.6 | VITA-Bench | |
| Feb 16, 2026 | 49.7 | VITA-Bench | |
| Feb 14, 2026 | 47 | VitaBench | |
| Jan 23, 2026 | 40.9 | Vita Bench | |
| Jan 14, 2026 | 29.3 | VitaBench (Avg@4) | |
| Sep 21, 2025 | 29.5 | VitaBench | |
| Aug 29, 2025 | 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2026 | | 33.1 | VitaBench (Table 4) | Capabilities |
| Feb 14, 2026 | | 47 | VitaBench (Table 11) | Capabilities |
| Jan 23, 2026 | | 29.3 | VitaBench (Avg@4), updated verifier (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| Sep 23, 2025 | | 29.5 | VitaBench (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| Sep 1, 2025 | | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | 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. |
| | 24.3% VitaBench(avg@4) | 22.8% Leaderboard, non-thinking | +1.5 pts | |
| | 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.
Source: Official leaderboards
More 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%