EN
EnglishEspañol中文PortuguêsFrançaisالعربية日本語한국어

Updated Oct 10, 2026

Model comparison

The Latent benchmark database

Published benchmark results for 31 frontier models, kept in each benchmark's native units and grouped into 7 capability domains.

These results are scattered across lab announcements, leaderboards, and PDFs, and no two of them are reported the same way. This page gathers the benchmarks worth comparing into one table, exactly as their publishers reported them.

205benchmarks tracked
92with enough coverage to compare
113composites + excluded evidence
31frontier models tracked

20 rows on this page · listed separately

Composite indices and excluded benchmarks

Composite indices bundle up benchmarks already listed above, so they sit on their own rather than in a domain table. Rows covering fewer than 2 models are kept here until more results are published. Other rows remain separate when their reviewed evidence does not meet the scoring criteria.

BenchmarkOpus 5.5AnthropicGPT-6 AstraOpenAIGemini 4 ArgonGoogleFable 5.1AnthropicSonnet 5.5AnthropicOpus 5AnthropicMiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomiFable 5AnthropicGPT-6.1 SolOpenAIGPT-6 SolOpenAIMuse Spark 1.3MetaDeepSeek V4.1-FlashDeepSeekGPT-5.6 SolOpenAIGrok 4.7xAIGrok 4.6xAIKimi K3Moonshot AIGLM-5.3Z.aiGemini 3.8 FlashGoogleGemini 3.7 FlashGoogleClaude Haiku 5.5AnthropicGPT-6 LunaOpenAIGPT-5.6 TerraOpenAIGLM 5.3 FlashZ.aiQwen3.8-MaxAlibabaMuse Spark 1.2MetaDeepSeek V4 ProDeepSeekMistral Large 4Mistral AIGPT-5.6 LunaOpenAISonnet 5AnthropicQwen3.8-27BAlibabaDeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeekEvidenceStatus
Harvey LAB — AA held-out all-passCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.----11.7%--------------------------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
Harvey LAB-AACurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.91.24%--93.02%93.1%93.46%-93.56%--95.48%-87.18%--94.64%--90.66%--85.18%-----87.9%90.07%--SourceCitationInsufficient distinct-provider anchors or zero spread
Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark - held-outCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.---16.7%-11.7%-13.3%----2.5%---------------5.8%--—Insufficient distinct-provider anchors or zero spread
Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark — xAI releaseCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.-------------19.6%-----------------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
HealthBenchCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.-59.7%----------55.6%--------58.7%-----55.4%---—Insufficient distinct-provider anchors or zero spread
HealthBench — Anthropic Opus 4.8 grader length-adjustedCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.----65.4%--------------------------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
HealthBench — Anthropic Opus 4.8 grader rawCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.----69.4%--------------------------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
HealthBench Consensus — Sep 22 length-adjustedCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.--------96%96.2%----------95.9%----------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
HealthBench HardCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.-37.8%----------31.1%--------34.3%-----31.4%---SourceCitationInsufficient distinct-provider anchors or zero spread
HealthBench Hard — Sep 22 length-adjustedCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.--------36.2%30.1%----------31.4%----------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
HealthBench Overall — Sep 22 length-adjustedCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.--------58.5%53.2%----------54.5%----------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
HealthBench Professional — Anthropic Opus 4.8 grader rawCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.----77.1%--------------------------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
HealthBench Professional — Opus 5.5 length-adjustedCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.65.6%---69.2%--------------------------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
HealthBench Professional — Sep 22 length-adjustedCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.--------64.2%60.8%----------60.8%----------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
HealthBench Professional — xAI releaseCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.-------------56.7%-----------------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
HLE text-only — AA harnessCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.61.35%-57.09%-----52.92%47.91%---------44.39%38.51%-39.85%---35.03%----—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
HLE text-only — DeepSeek V4.1 releaseCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.-----------39.1%-------------------—No frozen calibration; retained as collected evidence.
IFBenchCurrent values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.-------63.5%----72.7%--74.4%-----71.2%-82.8%-76.5%---79.5%-SourceCitationInsufficient distinct-provider anchors or zero spread
Internal Research Debugging — Sep 22Current values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.---------64.2%----------46.62%----------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology
KernelGen 1P — Sep 22Current values follow the best-published-reasoning-mode policy. Individual source, configuration and admission decisions are disclosed on /methodology#model-evidence. Collected values without a matching review remain visible but do not contribute.---------38.12%----------21.83%----------—Excluded from scoring; see methodology

Reading this table

Native units, nothing adjusted

Units

Cells show each benchmark's native scale: accuracy percentages, Elo ratings, or points. Nothing is rescaled or converted, so compare along a row. Two different rows are two different scales.

Best in row

The strongest published result in each row is highlighted. A blank cell means that model has no published result on that benchmark, which is not the same as a zero.

What gets listed

A benchmark earns a row when its result is published against a named model version with a stated metric, and when enough models have run it for the comparison to mean something. Numbers we cannot trace back to a source are left out.

Provenance

Results are current as of 2026-10-10. Vendor-reported head-to-head rows are named as such (e.g. “Anthropic H2H”) and carry their caveats in the row notes.

Evidence downloads: manifest · dataset JSON · results CSV · citations CSV