BankerToolBench
100 end-to-end junior-banker tasks producing Excel, PowerPoint and Word deliverables. Agentic grader scores ~150 weighted expert rubric criteria.
Built with 502 investment bankers. Packaged as a Harbor task suite. Grader repo Handshake-AI-Research/gandalf-the-grader.
In the authors’ words
Existing AI benchmarks lack the fidelity to assess economically meaningful progress on professional workflows. To evaluate frontier AI agents in a high-value, labor-intensive profession, we introduce BankerToolBench (BTB): an open-source benchmark of end-to-end analytical workflows routinely performed by junior investment bankers. To develop an ecologically valid benchmark grounded in representative work environments, we collaborated with 502 investment bankers from leading firms. BTB requires agents to execute senior banker requests by navigating data rooms, using industry tools (market data platform, SEC filings database), and generating multi-file deliverables–including Excel financial models, PowerPoint pitch decks, and PDF/Word reports. Completing a BTB task takes bankers up to 21 hours, underscoring the economic stakes of successfully delegating this work to AI. BTB enables automated evaluation of any LLM or agent, scoring deliverables against 100+ rubric criteria defined by veteran investment bankers to capture stakeholder utility. Testing 9 frontier models, we find that even the best-performing model (GPT-5.4) fails nearly half of the rubric criteria and bankers rate 0% of its outputs as client-ready. Our failure analysis reveals key obstacles (such as breakdowns in cross-artifact consistency) and improvement directions for agentic AI in high-stakes professional workflows.
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
Tencent Hy4 preview leads with 78.6%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 1
Tencent Hy4 preview 78.6%
- 2
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 76.2%
- 3
MiniMax-M3 76.1%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 78.6% | Aug 2026 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 76.2% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 76.1% | Jun 2026 | Model card |
2 models have held number one since its release in Apr 2026
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
2 labs 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 Oct 2026 | 76.2 | BankerToolBench | |
| 28 Aug 2026 | 78.6 | BankerToolBench | |
| 1 Jun 2026 | 76.1 | BankerToolBench |
Versions
More in Law, finance and medicine
- HealthBench Professional In use 525 physician-authored tasks from real clinician chats (care consult, documentation, research) with physician-adjudicated rubrics. Claude Sonnet 5.5 69.2%
- MedXpertQA-MM In use Models answer expert-level medical exam questions that combine images with clinical records and test results. Scoring is accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 80.4%
- HealthBench In use 5,000 realistic health conversations graded against physician-written rubrics. A length-adjusted variant penalizes verbosity. GPT-5 67.2%
- KBL In use Models answer Korean legal knowledge and reasoning tasks and Korean bar exam questions. It has 7 knowledge tasks, 4 reasoning tasks and 2,510 bar exam items.
Solar Pro 4 77.5%
- KorMedMCQA In use Models answer 7,469 multiple-choice questions from Korean licensing exams for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists, held from 2012 to 2024.
Solar Pro 4 93.2%
- PRBench In use Model answers 1,100 expert-written law and finance questions. LLM judge grades against weighted expert rubrics of 10-30 criteria each.
Muse Spark 1.3 61.6%