Benchmark Almanac

JobBench

GLM-5.3 61.4% leads since Aug 2026 In use

130 tasks from 35 occupations workers most want delegated. Agent works through messy reference files, graded by fact-anchored binary rubrics.

Framed as an alternative to GDPval's economic-value framing. Vendor-reported scores run higher than the paper's best (45.9%).

In the authors’ words

Current benchmarks for occupational AI agents are scoped primarily by economic values, telling a replacement story. We introduce JobBench, which evaluates AI agents on the workflows that experts identify as high-priority for delegation, empowering humans based on their needs instead of replacing them with GDP value. JobBench covers 130 agentic tasks across 35 occupations. Each task is packaged as a workspace of heterogeneous reference files, requiring the agent to reason through the cluttered information streams of real professional work. Outputs are graded by a fact-anchored chain of rubrics, averaging 35.6 binary criteria per task. We evaluate 36 models; the strongest, Claude Opus 4.7 under Claude Code, reaches only 45.9 %. We hope JobBench shifts the community's target labour-market effect from replacement to enhancement: building agents that do what humans actually want delegated, not only what is most economically valuable.

Abstract of JobBench: Aligning Agent Work With Human Will (arXiv:2605.26329, CC0)
Made by University of Washington + collaborators Released May 2026 Tasks from real jobs All tasks public Last in a launch post Oct 2026 Last model added Oct 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
Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
16
Models scored on its own leaderboard
12
Launch posts list it, from 6 labs
5
System cards report it, from 3 labs

GLM-5.3 leads with 61.4% among models released by Aug 2026

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.

The newest model with a score here came out in Aug 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 GLM-5.3 61.4%
  2. 2 Claude Fable 5 57.4%
  3. 3 Muse Spark 1.1 54.7%
  4. 4 Kimi K3 54.3%
  5. 5 Qwen 3.8 Max 52.7%
  6. 6 Claude Opus 4.8 48.4%
  7. 7 GPT-5.6 Sol 45.4%
  8. 8 Claude Opus 4.7 44.5%
  9. 9 GLM-5.2 43.4%
  10. 10 GPT-5.5 38.3%
  11. 11 Claude Sonnet 4.6 36.6%
  12. 12 Gemini 3.5 Flash 31.5%
  13. 13 Inkling 31.1%
  14. 14 Nemotron 3 Ultra 27.2%
  15. 15 Claude Sonnet 4.5 20.7%
  16. 16 Gemini 3.1 Pro 15.9%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GLM-5.3 61.4% OpenCode Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Fable 5 57.4% OpenCode Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Muse Spark 1.1 54.7% OpenCode Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Kimi K3 54.3% OpenCode Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Qwen 3.8 Max 52.7% OpenCode Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Opus 4.8 48.4% OpenCode May 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-5.6 Sol 45.4% OpenCode Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Opus 4.7 44.5% OpenCode Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
9 GLM-5.2 43.4% OpenCode Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-5.5 38.3% OpenCode Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Sonnet 4.6 36.6% OpenCode Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Gemini 3.5 Flash 31.5% OpenCode May 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Inkling 31.1% OpenCode Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Nemotron 3 Ultra 27.2% OpenCode Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Claude Sonnet 4.5 20.7% OpenCode Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
16 Gemini 3.1 Pro 15.9% OpenCode Feb 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 12 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

4 models have held number one since its release in May 2026

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

Anthropic Z.ai Meta Qwen Tencent
Own leaderboard Not tested since Aug 2026
GLM-5.3 61.4%
Lab claims 5 leaders

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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Muse Wonder Full Muse Spark 1.3 Claude Fable 5 Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Muse Wonder Full Muse Spark 1.3

6 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.

Meta
Moonshot AI
Qwen
Tencent
StepFun
Xiaomi Corp
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
15 Oct 2026 Muse Spark Open 61.8 JobBench
12 Oct 2026 Muse Wonder 70.5 JobBench
12 Oct 2026 Muse Wonder Full 75.3 JobBench
22 Sep 2026 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 62 JobBench
20 Sep 2026 Step 5 Preview 59 JobBench
2 Sep 2026 Muse Spark 1.3 64.9 JobBench (Professional tool use)
28 Aug 2026 Tencent Hy4 preview 61.7 JobBench
26 Aug 2026 Qwen3.8 Flash 55.7 Professional job tasks JobBench
14 Aug 2026 Qwen 3.8 27B 33.4 Professional job tasks JobBench
3 Aug 2026 Qwen 3.8 Max 53.4 JobBench
16 Jul 2026 Kimi K3 54.3 JobBench
9 Jul 2026 Muse Spark 1.1 54.7 JobBench (Professional tool use)

5 system cards report it, from 3 labs

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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
12 Oct 2026 Muse Wonder model card 70.5 JobBench mean reward, Muse Wonder (max) (capabilities table image, page 3) Capabilities
12 Oct 2026 Muse Wonder Full model card 75.3 JobBench mean reward, Muse Wonder Full (max) (capabilities table image, page 3) Capabilities
22 Sep 2026 MiMo-V2.6 Pro technical report 62 JobBench (Table 3) Capabilities
27 Jul 2026 Kimi K3 technical report 54.3 JobBench, cited from the official leaderboard (Table 2) Capabilities
9 Jul 2026 Muse Spark 1.1 system card 54.7 JobBench, OpenCode harness, Grok 4.3 judge (Figure 44) Capabilities

More in Economic work

All 91 in Economic work
  • GDPval In use Real work tasks from 44 occupations with reference files. Experts blindly compare model deliverables with expert work. Metric is win-or-tie rate. Seed2.1 Pro 87.9%
  • GDPval-AA v2.1 In use Agents with shell and web access complete 220 GDPval gold tasks from 44 occupations. Blind pairwise comparisons give Elo ratings. Claude Opus 5.5 1,846
  • AA-Briefcase v1.1 In use Version 1.1 of Artificial Analysis's multi-hour office work evaluation, with Elo ratings fitted by Crowd-BT. Claude Opus 5.5 1,822
  • CoWorkBench In use Agent completes long-horizon productivity tasks across computer science, finance, law and medicine. Qwen in-house scoring (method unpublished). Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash 75.3%
  • OfficeQA In use Grounded reasoning over a large corpus of U.S. Treasury Bulletin documents: locate tables and compute precise numeric answers. Claude Opus 4.7 86.3%
  • SpreadsheetBench In use Real spreadsheet manipulation questions from Excel forums. Output workbook is checked cell-by-cell against reference solutions. MiniMax-M3 89.3%