Benchmark Almanac

LADDER

GPT-6 Astra 63.3% leads since Oct 2026 Not in model cards

Policies, orchestrators and frontier-model agents do 145 long-horizon tabletop tasks of 1 to 10 subgoals in three simulators. A task counts only when every object ends in place.

Suites are RoboLab-Long (44 tasks), SimplerEnv-Long and RobotArena-Long. Best system 63.3%, falling to 34.8% at 8 to 10 objects. LADDER-Lite is a 10-task subset with GPT-6 Astra, Gemini 4 Argon and Claude Opus 5.5.

In the authors’ words

General-purpose robot manipulation policies learn short-horizon skills effectively, but degrade rapidly on long-horizon tasks. Existing benchmarks cannot isolate failures because task horizon is either too short or entangled with scene and object variations. We propose LADDER, a long-horizon robot manipulation benchmark scaling from 1 to 10 subgoals within the same environment over three suites (SimplerEnv-Long, RobotArena-∞-Long, and RoboLab-Long), 145 tasks, eight categories, two embodiments, and 2,024 simulated episodes per system. We evaluate two orchestration paradigms: text subgoals for learned low-level policies (VoLo) and tool selection orchestration (CaP-X, GPT-Policy, PSP-Agent, TiPToP). Given the full instruction directly, low-level policies achieve 85.4% on single-subgoal tasks, but drop to near zero on extended tasks. While orchestration remedies this, it remains bounded by physical execution errors of the low-level policy rather than high-level planning and achieves only ~25%. Tool selection orchestration with GPT-Policy on GPT-6 Astra significantly outperforms learned-policy methods, but incurs significant time and cost budget and succeeds only ~62%. Real-world experiments across two embodiments confirm the collapse of the low-level policy and the gain from orchestration. Project website: https://ladder.insait.ai

Abstract of LADDER: A Long-Horizon Robot Manipulation Benchmark (arXiv:2610.18053, CC0)
Made by INSAIT Released Oct 2026 Simulated robots All tasks public Last model added Sep 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
4
Models scored on its own leaderboard

GPT-6 Astra leads with 63.3%

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. Every run is in the next chart.

  1. 1 GPT-6 Astra 63.3%
  2. 2 Gemini 4 Argon LADDER-Lite 55.9%
  3. 3 Claude Opus 5.5 LADDER-Lite 49%
  4. 4 Gemini 3.7 Flash 42.8%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-6 Astra 63.3% GPT-Policy Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 4 Argon 55.9% LADDER-Lite, GPT-Policy Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Opus 5.5 49% LADDER-Lite, GPT-Policy Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Gemini 3.7 Flash 42.8% PSP-Agent Aug 2026 Official leaderboard

The best score, 63.3%, costs $4.02 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 OpenAI Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% $0.001 $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale GPT-6 Astra Gemini 4 Argon, LADDER-Lite Gemini 3.7 Flash Gemini 3.7 Flash Gemini 3.7 Flash 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% $0.001 $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale GPT-6 Astra Gemini 4 Argon, LADDER-Lite
ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-6 Astra GPT-Policy 63.3% $4.02
Gemini 4 Argon LADDER-Lite GPT-Policy 55.9% $0.78
Claude Opus 5.5 LADDER-Lite GPT-Policy 49% $3.58
Gemini 3.7 Flash PSP-Agent 42.8% $0.13
Gemini 3.7 Flash VoLo 25.3% $0.17
Gemini 3.7 Flash Proprioceptive verifier 25% $0.04
Gemini 3.7 Flash CaP-X 21.9% $0.04
Gemini 3.7 Flash TiPToP 11.7% $0.007

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

OpenAI
Own leaderboard 1 leader
GPT-6 Astra 63.3%

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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-6 Astra Gemini 3.7 Flash 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-6 Astra Gemini 3.7 Flash

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 Robotics

All 86 in Robotics
  • ERQA In use 400 multiple-choice visual questions from robot and egocentric footage on spatial, trajectory, action and state reasoning. Accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 78.5%
  • RoboLab In use Zero-shot DROID Franka policies in Isaac Lab on 120 tabletop tasks at three instruction levels, 10 episodes each. Success rate. GR00T N1.7 8.58%
  • Human proximity (Google DeepMind robotics) In use Models judge from robot camera views whether a human is within 1 meter, a spatial awareness check for safe robot behavior. Scored by accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 93%
  • Moment finding (Google DeepMind) In use Models find the moment in a robot video when an event happens. Scored by accuracy and mean absolute time distance in seconds. Gemini Robotics ER 2 91.3%
  • Progress classification (Google DeepMind) In use Models assign each frame of a robot video to one of five task-progress bands from 0 to 100 percent. Scored by accuracy. Gemini Robotics ER 2 57.4%
  • LIBERO Fading Simulated Franka tabletop tasks in four 10-task suites. Policies fine-tuned on 50 demos per task. Success rate over ~50 trials. MolmoAct 2 97.2%