LEXam
Models answer 7,537 questions from 340 law exams at Swiss, EU and international law courses, in English and German. Open answers are judged against reference answers, and multiple-choice items are exact match.
ICLR 2026. The makers corrected multiple-choice annotation errors in November 2025 and split the choices into 4, 8, 16 and 32 option files.
In the authors’ words
Long-form legal reasoning remains a key challenge for large language models (LLMs) in spite of recent advances in test-time scaling. To address this, we introduce LEXam, a novel benchmark derived from 340 law exams spanning 116 law school courses across a range of subjects and degree levels. The dataset comprises 7,537 law exam questions in English and German. It includes both long-form, open-ended questions and multiple-choice questions with varying numbers of options. Besides reference answers, the open questions are also accompanied by explicit guidance outlining the expected legal reasoning approach such as issue spotting, rule recall, or rule application. Our evaluation on both open-ended and multiple-choice questions present significant challenges for current LLMs; in particular, they notably struggle with open questions that require structured, multi-step legal reasoning. Moreover, our results underscore the effectiveness of the dataset in differentiating between models with varying capabilities. Deploying an ensemble LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm with rigorous human expert validation, we demonstrate how model-generated reasoning steps can be evaluated consistently and accurately, closely aligning with human expert assessments. Our evaluation setup provides a scalable method to assess legal reasoning quality beyond simple accuracy metrics. Project page: https://lexam-benchmark.github.io/.
- 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.
GPT-5 leads with 70.2% among models released by Nov 2025
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. 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 Nov 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 70.2 GPT-5
- 67.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 62.9 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 62.8 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 60.3 GPT-5 mini
- 57.5 GPT-4.1
- 57.4
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
- 56.9 GPT-4o
- 56.5 DeepSeek-V3.2-reasoner
- 56.0 DeepSeek-V3.2-chat
- 55.9
DeepSeek-R1
- 55.4
Gemini 3 Pro
- 54.6 GPT-4.1 mini
- 52.5
DeepSeek-V3
- 51.7 gpt-oss-120b
- 48.1 o3-mini
- 47.3
Llama 4 Maverick
- 47.3
Qwen3-235B-A22B
- 44.4
QwQ-32B
- 43.7 GPT-4.1 nano
- 43.4 Qwen3-Next
- 43.1
Llama 3.1-405B
- 42.5 GPT-4o mini
- 41.3
Gemma 3 12B
- 41.3
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
- 40.0
Qwen3-32B
- 38.5
Phi-4
- 34.7
Apertus 70B
- 32.1 gpt-oss-20b
- 27.4
Gemma 2 9B
- 27.3 GPT-5 nano
- 22.9 EuroLLM-9B-it
- 22.4 Apertus-8B
- 16.7
Qwen2.5-7B
- 14.9
Ministral 8B
- 10.0
Llama 3.1-8B
- 1 GPT-5 70.2%
- 2
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 67.4%
- 3 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 62.9%
- 4 Claude Sonnet 4.5 62.8%
- 5 GPT-5 mini 60.3%
- 6 GPT-4.1 57.5%
- 7
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp 57.4%
- 8 GPT-4o Mar 2025 56.9%
- 9 DeepSeek-V3.2-reasoner 56.5%
- 10 DeepSeek-V3.2-chat 56%
- 11
DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 55.9%
- 12
Gemini 3 Pro 55.4%
- 13 GPT-4.1 mini 54.6%
- 14
DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 52.5%
- 15 gpt-oss-120b 51.7%
- 16 o3-mini 48.1%
- 17
Llama 4 Maverick 47.3%
- 18
Qwen3-235B-A22B 47.3%
- 19
QwQ-32B 44.4%
- 20 GPT-4.1 nano 43.7%
- 21 Qwen3-Next 43.4%
- 22
Llama 3.1-405B 43.1%
- 23 GPT-4o mini 42.5%
- 24
Gemma 3 12B 41.3%
- 25
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct 41.3%
- 26
Qwen3-32B 40%
- 27
Phi-4 38.5%
- 28
Apertus 70B 34.7%
- 29 gpt-oss-20b 32.1%
- 30
Gemma 2 9B 27.4%
- 31 GPT-5 nano 27.3%
- 32 EuroLLM-9B-it 22.9%
- 33 Apertus-8B 22.4%
- 34
Qwen2.5-7B 16.7%
- 35
Ministral 8B 14.9%
- 36
Llama 3.1-8B 10%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5 | 70.2% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | | 67.4% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 62.9% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 62.8% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | GPT-5 mini | 60.3% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | GPT-4.1 | 57.5% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 57.4% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | GPT-4o Mar 2025 | 56.9% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | DeepSeek-V3.2-reasoner | 56.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 10 | DeepSeek-V3.2-chat | 56% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | | 55.9% | May 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 55.4% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | GPT-4.1 mini | 54.6% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 52.5% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | gpt-oss-120b | 51.7% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | o3-mini | 48.1% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 47.3% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | | 47.3% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 44.4% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | GPT-4.1 nano | 43.7% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | Qwen3-Next | 43.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 22 | | 43.1% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | GPT-4o mini | 42.5% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 41.3% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 41.3% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | | 40% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | | 38.5% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | | 34.7% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | gpt-oss-20b | 32.1% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | | 27.4% | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | GPT-5 nano | 27.3% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 32 | EuroLLM-9B-it | 22.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 33 | Apertus-8B | 22.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 34 | | 16.7% | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 35 | | 14.9% | Oct 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 36 | | 10% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard |
3 models have held number one since its release in May 2025
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.
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 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%