Benchmark Almanac

VitaBench 2.0

Claude Opus 4.6 50.3% leads since May 2026
Claude Opus 4.6 50.3% leads since May 2026
In use

Agents serve one simulated user across a sequence of life-service subtasks over days or months. They must infer, use and update the user's preferences, judged by rubrics.

Reuses the three VitaBench domains and adds a memory interface with full-context, agentic and RAG memory settings. The board reports Avg@4.

Released
May 2026
Kind
Customer service
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 4.6 #37 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
October 2026
Last model added
October 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Large language models (LLMs) have evolved into interactive agents that collaborate with users in real-world tasks. Effective collaboration in such settings increasingly depends on understanding the user beyond what is explicitly stated, as user intent is often reflected in fragmented daily interactions and requires both personalized modeling and proactive interaction. However, existing agent benchmarks primarily evaluate reasoning and tool use, largely overlooking the challenges of inferring and leveraging user preferences in realistic scenarios. To address this gap, we introduce VitaBench 2.0, a benchmark for evaluating personalized and proactive agent behavior in long-term user interactions. In VitaBench 2.0, tasks are organized as temporally ordered sequences for individual users, where preferences are embedded in fragmented and heterogeneous interactions. Successful completion of tasks requires the agent to continuously extract, utilize, and update user preferences from these interactions. We further evaluate proactiveness through tasks that require agents to recognize missing information and actively acquire it from users or environments before making decisions. To support systematic analysis, we provide an extensible memory interface that enables controlled comparison across different memory architectures. We benchmark a diverse set of frontier proprietary and open-source LLMs. Results show that real-world personalization remains highly challenging even for state-of-the-art models, revealing a substantial gap between current capabilities and practical requirements. Extensive analysis further reveals the failure modes and capability bottlenecks of current agents in real-world personalized decision-making, providing insights for future model improvements.

Abstract of VitaBench 2.0: Evaluating Personalized and Proactive Agents in Long-Term User Interactions (arXiv:2605.27141, CC0)
20
Entries on its own leaderboard, 17 models we track
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab

Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 50.3% among models released by April 2026

Best score per entry 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. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 50.3%, 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:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 50.3%
  2. 2 Seed2.0 Pro thinking 47.4%
  3. 3 DeepSeek-V4-Pro thinking 47.2%
  4. 4 GPT-5 thinking 44.1%
  5. 5 GLM-5.1 non-thinking 42.3%
  6. 6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 41.7%
  7. 7 DeepSeek-R1 May 2025, thinking 41.2%
  8. 8 o3 thinking 40.3%
  9. 9 Kimi K2.6 non-thinking 39.7%
  10. 10 Doubao-Seed-1.6 thinking 38.3%
  11. 11 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) thinking 37.8%
  12. 12 GLM-4.5 thinking 36.4%
  13. 13 GLM-4.6 thinking 35.9%
  14. 14 MiniMax-M2.7 thinking 35.1%
  15. 15 Qwen3-Max thinking 32.4%
  16. 16 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) thinking 31.2%
  17. 17 LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking 30.2%
  18. 18 o4-mini thinking 27%
  19. 19 GPT-3.5-Turbo (snapshot unspecified) non-thinking 23.1%
  20. 20 GPT-4o mini non-thinking 9.40%

Source: Official VitaBench 2.0 leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.6 50.3% thinking Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Seed2.0 Pro 47.4% thinking Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 47.2% thinking Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5 44.1% thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
5 GLM-5.1 42.3% non-thinking, Agentic Memory Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 41.7% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 41.2% thinking, Agentic Memory May 2025 Official leaderboard
8 o3 40.3% thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Kimi K2.6 39.7% non-thinking, Agentic Memory Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Doubao-Seed-1.6 38.3% thinking, Agentic Memory Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) 37.8% thinking, Agentic Memory Official leaderboard
12 GLM-4.5 36.4% thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
13 GLM-4.6 35.9% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
14 MiniMax-M2.7 35.1% thinking, Agentic Memory Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen3-Max 32.4% thinking, Agentic Memory Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
16 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) 31.2% thinking, Agentic Memory Official leaderboard
17 LongCat-Flash-Chat 30.2% non-thinking, Agentic Memory Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
18 o4-mini 27% thinking, Agentic Memory Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
19 GPT-3.5-Turbo (snapshot unspecified) 23.1% non-thinking, Agentic Memory Official leaderboard
20 GPT-4o mini 9.40% non-thinking, RAG Memory Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.6 50.3% thinking Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Seed2.0 Pro 47.4% thinking Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 47.2% thinking Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5 44.1% thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
5 GLM-5.1 42.3% non-thinking, Agentic Memory Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 41.7% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 41.2% thinking, Agentic Memory May 2025 Official leaderboard
8 o3 40.3% thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Kimi K2.6 39.7% non-thinking, Agentic Memory Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Doubao-Seed-1.6 38.3% thinking, Agentic Memory Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
11 GLM-4.5 36.4% thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
12 GLM-4.6 35.9% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
13 MiniMax-M2.7 35.1% thinking, Agentic Memory Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen3-Max 32.4% thinking, Agentic Memory Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Spark-X2.6-4B 30.8% Oct 2026 Lab model card
16 LongCat-Flash-Chat 30.2% non-thinking, Agentic Memory Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
17 o4-mini 27% thinking, Agentic Memory Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
18 GPT-4o mini 9.40% non-thinking, RAG Memory Jul 2024 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Scores at each effort level

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
Seed2.0 Pro
non-thinking thinking
47.4%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
non-thinking
47.2%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro Agentic Memory
non-thinking thinking
44.9%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro RAG Memory
non-thinking
43%
Seed2.0 Pro Agentic Memory
non-thinking
42.8%
GLM-5.1 Agentic Memory
thinking non-thinking
42.3%
GLM-5.1
thinking non-thinking
42%
Seed2.0 Pro RAG Memory
thinking non-thinking
40.6%
Kimi K2.6 Agentic Memory
thinking non-thinking
39.7%
Doubao-Seed-1.6 Agentic Memory
non-thinking thinking
38.3%
GLM-5.1 RAG Memory
thinking non-thinking
38.3%
Kimi K2.6 RAG Memory
thinking non-thinking
38.3%

Source: Official VitaBench 2.0 leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 50.3%
Seed2.0 Pro thinking 47.4%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro thinking 47.2%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro non-thinking 45.6%
Claude Opus 4.6 thinking Agentic Memory 45.4%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro thinking Agentic Memory 44.9%
GPT-5 thinking 44.1%
Claude Opus 4.6 thinking RAG Memory 43%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro thinking RAG Memory 43%
Seed2.0 Pro thinking Agentic Memory 42.8%
Seed2.0 Pro non-thinking 42.8%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro non-thinking Agentic Memory 42.7%
Seed2.0 Pro non-thinking Agentic Memory 42.6%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro non-thinking RAG Memory 42.4%
GLM-5.1 non-thinking Agentic Memory 42.3%
GPT-5 thinking Agentic Memory 42.1%
GLM-5.1 non-thinking 42%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 41.7%
DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 thinking Agentic Memory 41.2%
GPT-5 thinking RAG Memory 41%
Seed2.0 Pro non-thinking RAG Memory 40.6%
o3 thinking 40.3%
o3 thinking Agentic Memory 40.1%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking Agentic Memory 39.7%
Kimi K2.6 non-thinking Agentic Memory 39.7%
DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 thinking 39.6%
GLM-5.1 thinking 39.4%
DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 thinking RAG Memory 39%
Doubao-Seed-1.6 thinking Agentic Memory 38.3%
GLM-5.1 non-thinking RAG Memory 38.3%
Kimi K2.6 non-thinking RAG Memory 38.3%
Kimi K2.6 non-thinking 37.8%
Doubao-Seed-1.6 thinking RAG Memory 37.5%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking RAG Memory 37.4%
Doubao-Seed-1.6 thinking 37.3%
GLM-4.5 thinking 36.4%
o3 thinking RAG Memory 36.2%
GLM-4.6 thinking 35.9%
GLM-5.1 thinking Agentic Memory 35.2%
Doubao-Seed-1.6 non-thinking RAG Memory 35.1%
GLM-4.6 thinking Agentic Memory 35.1%
MiniMax-M2.7 thinking Agentic Memory 35.1%
MiniMax-M2.7 thinking 34.5%
GLM-4.6 non-thinking 34.2%
Doubao-Seed-1.6 non-thinking Agentic Memory 34%
Seed2.0 Pro thinking RAG Memory 33.9%
GLM-4.5 thinking RAG Memory 33.6%
GLM-4.6 thinking RAG Memory 33.6%
GLM-4.6 non-thinking Agentic Memory 33.6%
GLM-4.5 non-thinking Agentic Memory 33%
GLM-5.1 thinking RAG Memory 32.8%
Doubao-Seed-1.6 non-thinking 32.6%
Qwen3-Max thinking Agentic Memory 32.4%
GLM-4.6 non-thinking RAG Memory 31.7%
GLM-4.5 non-thinking RAG Memory 31.6%
Qwen3-Max thinking RAG Memory 31.5%
MiniMax-M2.7 thinking RAG Memory 31.4%
GLM-4.5 thinking Agentic Memory 31.1%
GLM-4.5 non-thinking 30.7%
Kimi K2.6 thinking RAG Memory 30.3%
LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking Agentic Memory 30.2%
LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking 29.8%
Kimi K2.6 thinking 29.3%
LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking RAG Memory 29%
Qwen3-Max thinking 28.4%
Kimi K2.6 thinking Agentic Memory 28%
o4-mini thinking Agentic Memory 27%
o4-mini thinking RAG Memory 26.1%
o4-mini thinking 21%
GPT-4o mini non-thinking RAG Memory 9.40%
GPT-4o mini non-thinking Agentic Memory 8.40%
GPT-4o mini non-thinking 6.70%

Number one over time Number one over time

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

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2026

Source: Official VitaBench 2.0 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% 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.6 GPT-5 GPT-4o mini 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.6 DeepSeek-R1

Sources: Official VitaBench 2.0 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.

iFlytek
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Oct 22, 2026 Spark-X2.6-4B 30.8 VitaBench2.0

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%