BrowseComp-Plus
Deep research agents answer 830 BrowseComp questions by searching a fixed corpus of about 100,000 human-verified documents.
BrowseComp-Plus is a different evaluation from BrowseComp. Labs use different retrievers and graders, so scores vary by setup.
In the authors’ words
Deep-Research agents, which integrate large language models (LLMs) with search tools, have shown success in improving the effectiveness of handling complex queries that require iterative search planning and reasoning over search results. Evaluations on current benchmarks like BrowseComp relies on black-box live web search APIs, have notable limitations in (1) fairness: dynamic and opaque web APIs hinder fair comparisons and reproducibility of deep research methods; (2) transparency: lack of control over the document corpus makes it difficult to isolate retriever contributions. In other words, the current evaluations may compare a complete deep research system at a given time, but they do not foster well-controlled experiments to provide insights into the capability of underlying deep research LLMs. To address these challenges, we introduce BrowseComp-Plus, a benchmark derived from BrowseComp, employing a fixed, carefully curated corpus. Each query in BrowseComp-Plus includes human-verified supporting documents and mined challenging negatives, enabling controlled experimentation. The benchmark is shown to be effective in distinguishing the performance of deep research systems. For instance, the open-source model Search-R1, when paired with the BM25 retriever, achieves 3.86% accuracy, whereas the GPT-5 achieves 55.9%. Integrating the GPT-5 with the Qwen3-Embedding-8B retriever further enhances its accuracy to 70.1% with fewer search calls. This benchmark allows comprehensive evaluation and disentangled analysis of deep research agents and retrieval methods, fostering insights into retrieval effectiveness, citation accuracy, and context engineering in Deep-Research system.
- 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
- Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
Claude Opus 4.5 leads with 67.6%
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 Claude Opus 4.5 67.6%
- 2 Mercury 3 55.2%
- 3 LFM3-1.7B 37%
- 4 LFM2.5-2.6B 26.9%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 67.6% | Nov 2025 | Model card | |
| 2 | Mercury 3 | 55.2% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | LFM3-1.7B | 37% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 4 | LFM2.5-2.6B | 26.9% | Aug 2026 | Model card |
Number one over time
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 27 Oct 2026 | LFM3-1.7B | 37 | BrowseComp-Plus (OpenClaw subset) |
| 19 Oct 2026 | Mercury 3 | 55.2 | BrowseComp+ |
| 4 Aug 2026 | LFM2.5-2.6B | 26.9 | BrowseComp+ (OpenClaw) |
One system card reports it
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 Nov 2025 | Claude Opus 4.5 system card | 67.6 | BrowseComp-Plus agentic search, with tool result clearing, Qwen3-Embedding-8B search, no fetch tool, single run (Table 2.6.A; 72.89% with tool result clearing + memory; Figure 2.6.2.A with fetch tool 70.48% base to 85.30% with subagents) | Capabilities |
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.
Muse Spark 1.1 88.1%
- 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%
- Claw-Eval In use 300 human-verified agent tasks (service orchestration, multimodal, multi-turn dialogue) audited via traces and snapshots. Rubric scores with Pass^3 consistency. Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4%
- DeepSearchQA In use Questions that need multi-step search and synthesis. Final answers graded against references. Kimi K3 95%