Benchmarks for frontier, agentic, and safety capabilities
Including benchmarks on agentic coding, frontier reasoning, and safety alignment.
From leading AI labs including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, and open-source contributors.
DrugDiscoveryBench: 82 expert-curated tasks evaluating how reliably frontier coding agents perform the computational work of early-stage drug discovery.
GPT 6 Astra (mini-SWE-agent) max
NEW68.70±2.50
GPT 6 Astra (Codex) max
NEW65.40±1.90
Muse-Spark 1.3 (mini-SWE-agent) high
NEW62.20±2.10
Evaluating an agent's ability to restructure code while preserving behavior.
GPT 6 Astra (Codex) xHigh
NEW59.05±6.43
Fable-5.1 (Claude Code) xHigh
NEW56.67±6.52
Fable-5 (Claude Code) xHigh
54.76±6.76
Evaluating an agent’s ability to write production-grade tests
Fable-5.1 (Claude Code) xHigh*
NEW67.04±5.33
Opus 5 (Claude Code) xHigh
62.22±5.58
Fable-5 (Claude Code) xHigh*
55.60±5.80
Evaluating deep code comprehension and reasoning
Opus 5 (Claude Code) xHigh
63.17±5.01
Fable-5.1 (Claude Code) xHigh*
NEW59.95±4.85
GPT 6 Astra (Codex) xHigh*
NEW59.14±4.88
Evaluates whether agents recognize information gaps and ask targeted clarifying questions.
Muse Wonder 1.0
NEW79.67±4.17
MuseSpark 1.3
NEW66.89±5.12
GPT 6 Astra
NEW65.32±5.19
Evaluating real-world tool use through the Model Context Protocol (MCP)
Muse Spark 1.1
88.10±1.95
Fable 5.1
NEW87.20±2.05
claude-opus-5 (xhigh)
85.80±2.10
Evaluating long-horizon software engineering tasks in public open source repositories
Opus 5 (Claude Code) xhigh
99.40±0.40
Gemini 4 Argon (mini-swe-agent) high
NEW99.22±0.45
Fable 5.1 (Claude Code) high
99.10±0.50
Evaluating long-horizon software engineering tasks in public open source repositories
Opus 5 (Claude Code) xhigh
98.00
Fable 5.1 (Claude Code) high
92.20
Gemini 4 Argon (mini-swe-agent) high
NEW92.16
Evaluating AI agents ability to perform real-world, economically valuable remote work
Opus 5.5
NEW21.25
GPT 6 Astra
20.83
Fable 5.1
17.92
We conduct high-complexity evaluations to expose model failures, prevent benchmark saturation, and push model capabilities--while continuously evaluating the latest frontier models.
Humans design complex evaluations and define precise criteria to assess models, while LLMs scale evaluations--ensuring efficiency and alignment with human judgment.
Our leaderboards are built on carefully curated evaluation sets, combining private datasets to prevent overfitting and open-source datasets for broad benchmarking and comparability.
If you'd like to add your model to this leaderboard or a future version, please contact [email protected]. To ensure leaderboard integrity, we require that models can only be featured the FIRST TIME when an organization encounters the prompts.