VitaBench 2.0
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.
- Made by
- Meituan LongCat Team
- 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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 50.3 Claude Opus 4.6
- 47.4
Seed2.0 Pro
- 47.2
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 44.1 GPT-5
- 42.3 GLM-5.1
- 41.7 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 41.2
DeepSeek-R1
- 40.3 o3
- 39.7 Kimi K2.6
- 38.3
Doubao-Seed-1.6
- 37.8 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified)
- 36.4 GLM-4.5
- 35.9 GLM-4.6
- 35.1
MiniMax-M2.7
- 32.4
Qwen3-Max
- 31.2 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified)
- 30.2
LongCat-Flash-Chat
- 27.0 o4-mini
- 23.1 GPT-3.5-Turbo (snapshot unspecified)
- 9.40 GPT-4o mini
- 1 Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 50.3%
- 2
Seed2.0 Pro thinking 47.4%
- 3
DeepSeek-V4-Pro thinking 47.2%
- 4 GPT-5 thinking 44.1%
- 5 GLM-5.1 non-thinking 42.3%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 41.7%
- 7
DeepSeek-R1 May 2025, thinking 41.2%
- 8 o3 thinking 40.3%
- 9 Kimi K2.6 non-thinking 39.7%
- 10
Doubao-Seed-1.6 thinking 38.3%
- 11 Gemini-2.5-Pro (snapshot unspecified) thinking 37.8%
- 12 GLM-4.5 thinking 36.4%
- 13 GLM-4.6 thinking 35.9%
- 14
MiniMax-M2.7 thinking 35.1%
- 15
Qwen3-Max thinking 32.4%
- 16 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) thinking 31.2%
- 17
LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking 30.2%
- 18 o4-mini thinking 27%
- 19 GPT-3.5-Turbo (snapshot unspecified) non-thinking 23.1%
- 20 GPT-4o mini non-thinking 9.40%
Source: Official VitaBench 2.0 leaderboard
- 1 Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 50.3%
- 2
Seed2.0 Pro thinking 47.4%
- 3
DeepSeek-V4-Pro thinking 47.2%
- 4 GPT-5 thinking 44.1%
- 5 GLM-5.1 non-thinking 42.3%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 41.7%
- 7
DeepSeek-R1 May 2025, thinking 41.2%
- 8 o3 thinking 40.3%
- 9 Kimi K2.6 non-thinking 39.7%
- 10
Doubao-Seed-1.6 thinking 38.3%
- 11 GLM-4.5 thinking 36.4%
- 12 GLM-4.6 thinking 35.9%
- 13
MiniMax-M2.7 thinking 35.1%
- 14
Qwen3-Max thinking 32.4%
- 15
Spark-X2.6-4B 30.8%
- 16
LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking 30.2%
- 17 o4-mini thinking 27%
- 18 GPT-4o mini non-thinking 9.40%
Sources: Official VitaBench 2.0 leaderboard and labs’ model cards
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 50.3% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 47.4% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 35.1% | thinking, Agentic Memory | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 32.4% | thinking, Agentic Memory | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) | 31.2% | thinking, Agentic Memory | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 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 |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 50.3% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 47.4% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 35.1% | thinking, Agentic Memory | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 32.4% | thinking, Agentic Memory | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 30.8% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 16 | | 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.
Source: Official VitaBench 2.0 leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.6 | thinking | 50.3% | |||
| | thinking | 47.4% | |||
| | thinking | 47.2% | |||
| | non-thinking | 45.6% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | thinking | Agentic Memory | 45.4% | ||
| | thinking | Agentic Memory | 44.9% | ||
| GPT-5 | thinking | 44.1% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | thinking | RAG Memory | 43% | ||
| | thinking | RAG Memory | 43% | ||
| | thinking | Agentic Memory | 42.8% | ||
| | non-thinking | 42.8% | |||
| | non-thinking | Agentic Memory | 42.7% | ||
| | non-thinking | Agentic Memory | 42.6% | ||
| | 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% | |||
| | thinking | Agentic Memory | 41.2% | ||
| GPT-5 | thinking | RAG Memory | 41% | ||
| | 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% | ||
| | thinking | 39.6% | |||
| GLM-5.1 | thinking | 39.4% | |||
| | thinking | RAG Memory | 39% | ||
| | 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% | |||
| | thinking | RAG Memory | 37.5% | ||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | thinking | RAG Memory | 37.4% | ||
| | 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% | ||
| | non-thinking | RAG Memory | 35.1% | ||
| GLM-4.6 | thinking | Agentic Memory | 35.1% | ||
| | thinking | Agentic Memory | 35.1% | ||
| | thinking | 34.5% | |||
| GLM-4.6 | non-thinking | 34.2% | |||
| | non-thinking | Agentic Memory | 34% | ||
| | 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% | ||
| | non-thinking | 32.6% | |||
| | thinking | Agentic Memory | 32.4% | ||
| GLM-4.6 | non-thinking | RAG Memory | 31.7% | ||
| GLM-4.5 | non-thinking | RAG Memory | 31.6% | ||
| | thinking | RAG Memory | 31.5% | ||
| | 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% | ||
| | non-thinking | Agentic Memory | 30.2% | ||
| | non-thinking | 29.8% | |||
| Kimi K2.6 | thinking | 29.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | RAG Memory | 29% | ||
| | 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.
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.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 22, 2026 | 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.
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%