Benchmark Almanac

BiomniBench

Claude Opus 4.7 63.9 leads since May 2026 Not in model cards

Agents redo data analysis tasks from 100 published biomedical studies in a Harbor environment. An LLM judge grades the whole trajectory against rubrics written with the paper authors, so method quality counts, not just the final answer.

More than 100 experts spent over 1,000 hours on the rubrics. xbench lists it in its Profession-Aligned series. Claude Opus 4.7 led 9 models at 63.94.

In the authors’ words

LLM agents now perform real biomedical research, but evaluating them rigorously is hard. Outcome-only benchmarks fail in two ways. First, a correct final answer can come from memorization, reward hacking, or wrong reasoning that produces the right number by chance. Second, valid alternative analyses are marked wrong simply because they differ from the reference. We introduce BiomniBench, a process-level evaluation framework that scores the full agent trajectory against expert-designed, task-specific rubrics. Our first release, BiomniBench-DA, contains 100 data-analysis tasks across 17 task types, 5 disease areas, and a general-biology category, each based on a paper from journals such as Nature, Cell, and Science and co-developed with an original author or a domain expert. Benchmarking frontier and open-weight models across four agent harnesses reveals three findings. Frontier and open-weight bases cluster within a few points of each other, with substantial headroom for all models. The agent harness shifts scores by more than the gap between successive model generations. Agents reliably ground claims in real sources yet consistently fall short on method selection, biological interpretation, and scientific reasoning. BiomniBench is the first process-level benchmark for LLM agents in biomedical research, providing the dimension-level diagnostics that outcome scoring cannot. huggingface.co/datasets/phylobio/BiomniBench-DA

Abstract of BiomniBench: Process-level Evaluation of LLM Agents for Real-world Biomedical Research (doi:10.64898/2026.05.12.724604, CC BY 4.0)
Made by Phylo , Humanlaya Data Lab and xbench (HongShan) Released May 2026 Genomics and life sciences All tasks public Last model added Apr 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
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
Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
9
Entries on its own leaderboard, 8 models we track

Claude Opus 4.7 leads with 63.9 among models released by Apr 2026

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 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.

The newest model with a score here came out in Apr 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 4.7 63.9
  2. 2 GPT-5.5 63.6
  3. 3 Claude Opus 4.6 63.2
  4. 4 Claude Sonnet 4.6 62.4
  5. 5 GLM-5.1 60.4
  6. 6 Qwen 3.6 59.5
  7. 7 Kimi K2.6 59.1
  8. 8 GPT-5.4 55.2
  9. 9 Gemini 3.1 Pro 44.3
#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.7 63.9 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.5 63.6 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Opus 4.6 63.2 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Sonnet 4.6 62.4 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
5 GLM-5.1 60.4 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Qwen 3.6 59.5 Official leaderboard
7 Kimi K2.6 59.1 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 GPT-5.4 55.2 Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Gemini 3.1 Pro 44.3 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard

The best score, 63.9, costs $0.87 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

Google DeepMind Z.ai Anthropic Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0.00 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 $0.10 $0.20 $0.50 $1.00 $2.00 $5.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 4.7 GLM-5.1 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0.00 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 4.7 Gemini 3.1 Pro
ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 4.7 63.9 $0.87
GPT-5.5 63.6 $1.98
Claude Opus 4.6 63.2 $1.79
Claude Sonnet 4.6 62.4 $0.94
GLM-5.1 60.4 $0.58
Kimi K2.6 59.1 $0.85
GPT-5.4 55.2 $1.08
Gemini 3.1 Pro 44.3 $0.37

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

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
40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 2026 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 2026

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Biology and chemistry

All 96 in Biology and chemistry
  • SUPERChem In use Models solve 500 expert-written chemistry reasoning problems, offered in multimodal and text-only forms. Expert solution paths also allow a reasoning path score. Tencent Hy4 preview 66.4%
  • GeneBench Pro In use Agents analyze messy simulated genomics and biology datasets to estimate a decision-relevant quantity across 129 problems. Scored automatically against known answers. GPT-6 Astra 37.1%
  • LifeSciBench In use Models complete 750 expert-written life science research tasks, often with attached figures, tables, or sequence files. Graded against expert rubrics as score and pass rate. GPT-6 Astra 60.3%
  • MolecularIQ In use Models answer questions about molecular graphs, such as counting, indexing and constrained generation, and a symbolic checker verifies each answer. Intern-S2-397B 62.4%
  • TOMG-Bench In use Models generate molecules from natural language requests in three tasks: molecule editing, molecule optimization and customized generation. Each output is checked for validity and for meeting the requested properties. Intern-S2-397B 66.8%
  • BABE Fading Models reason from experimental results in peer-reviewed biology papers to draw conclusions, with causal and cross-scale inference. Seed2.0 Lite (0428) 57.9%