Benchmark Almanac

LLM-WikiRace

Gemini 3.1 29% tops its leaderboard Claude Opus 4.5 18% leads the models we track
Not in model cards

Models play the Wikipedia game: starting from one article, they follow one hyperlink at a time to reach a target article. At each step the model sees only the links on the current page, and a game is lost after 30 steps. Three difficulty levels are set by the shortest path between the two pages. Scores are the share of games won at each level.

The leaderboard lists 30 models and also reports tokens per step. It gives no update date, and its newest entries are from early 2026. The paper finds that world knowledge helps only up to a point, after which planning limits success. About 10 HF paper upvotes and 8 GitHub stars.

Released
February 2026
Kind
Puzzles and chess
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 4.6 #37 on the capability index
Last model added
February 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

We introduce LLM-Wikirace, a benchmark for evaluating planning, reasoning, and world knowledge in large language models (LLMs). In LLM-Wikirace, models must efficiently navigate Wikipedia hyperlinks step by step to reach a target page from a given source, requiring look-ahead planning and the ability to reason about how concepts are connected in the real world. We evaluate a broad set of open- and closed-source models, including Gemini-3, GPT-5, and Claude Opus 4.5, which achieve the strongest results on the easy level of the task and demonstrate superhuman performance. Despite this, performance drops sharply on hard difficulty: the best-performing model, Gemini-3, succeeds in only 23% of hard games, highlighting substantial remaining challenges for frontier models. Our analysis shows that world knowledge is a necessary ingredient for success, but only up to a point, beyond this threshold, planning and long-horizon reasoning capabilities become the dominant factors. Trajectory-level analysis further reveals that even the strongest models struggle to replan after failure, frequently entering loops rather than recovering. LLM-Wikirace is a simple benchmark that reveals clear limitations in current reasoning systems, offering an open arena where planning-capable LLMs still have much to prove. Our code and leaderboard available at https:/llmwikirace.github.io.

Abstract of LLM-WikiRace Benchmark: How Far Can LLMs Plan over Real-World Knowledge Graphs? (arXiv:2602.16902, CC0)
30
Entries on its own leaderboard, 21 models we track

Gemini 3.1 tops the leaderboard with 29%

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 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 best model we track is Claude Opus 4.5, at 18%.

The newest model with a score here came out in February 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 Gemini 3.1 29%
  2. 2 Gemini 3 23%
  3. 3 Claude Opus 4.5 18%
  4. 4 DeepSeek R1 (snapshot unspecified) 17%
  5. 5 Claude Opus 4.6 16%
  6. 6 Gemini 2.5 15.2%
  7. 7 GPT-5 15%
  8. 8 GPT-5 mini 11%
  9. 9 Gemini 2.5 Flash (snapshot unspecified) 10.2%
  10. 10 Claude Sonnet 4.5 10.1%
  11. 11 GPT-5.2 10%
  12. 12 Llama 3-70B 7.00%
  13. 13 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 7.00%
  14. 14 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 6.00%
  15. 15 Grok 4.1 Fast 5.00%
  16. 16 GPT-5 nano 4.00%
  17. 17 Jev 2.00%
  18. 18 Dream-v0-Inst. 7B 1.00%
  19. 19 Mistral 7B v0.1 1.00%
  20. 20 Gemma 3 12B 1.00%
  21. 21 LLaDA-Inst. 8B 0%
  22. 22 LLaMA 3 1B 0%
  23. 23 LLaMA-33B 0%
  24. 24 Llama 3-8B 0%
  25. 25 Qwen2.5-7B 0%
  26. 26 Ministral 8B 0%
  27. 27 Gemma 3 27B 0%
  28. 28 Gemma 3 4B 0%
  29. 29 Apertus 70B 0%
  30. 30 Apertus 8B Instruct 0%

Source: Official LLM-WikiRace leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 3.1 29% Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3 23% Official leaderboard
3 Claude Opus 4.5 18% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
4 DeepSeek R1 (snapshot unspecified) 17% Official leaderboard
5 Claude Opus 4.6 16% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Gemini 2.5 15.2% Official leaderboard
7 GPT-5 15% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
8 GPT-5 mini 11% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Gemini 2.5 Flash (snapshot unspecified) 10.2% Official leaderboard
10 Claude Sonnet 4.5 10.1% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
11 GPT-5.2 10% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Llama 3-70B 7.00% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
13 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 7.00% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 6.00% Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Grok 4.1 Fast 5.00% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
16 GPT-5 nano 4.00% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Jev 2.00% Official leaderboard
18 Dream-v0-Inst. 7B 1.00% Official leaderboard
19 Mistral 7B v0.1 1.00% Sep 2023 Official leaderboard
20 Gemma 3 12B 1.00% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
21 LLaDA-Inst. 8B 0% Official leaderboard
22 LLaMA 3 1B 0% Official leaderboard
23 LLaMA-33B 0% Feb 2023 Official leaderboard
24 Llama 3-8B 0% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
25 Qwen2.5-7B 0% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
26 Ministral 8B 0% Oct 2024 Official leaderboard
27 Gemma 3 27B 0% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
28 Gemma 3 4B 0% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
29 Apertus 70B 0% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
30 Apertus 8B Instruct 0% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard

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 Feb 2026

Source: Official LLM-WikiRace leaderboard

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% 2023 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.5 Llama 3-70B Mistral 7B v0.1 LLaMA-33B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2023 2024 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.5 Llama 3-70B

Source: Official LLM-WikiRace leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Games and long tasks

All 82 in Games and long tasks
  • ARC-AGI-3 In use Interactive game environments where agents must explore, infer goals and rules, and act efficiently without instructions. GPT-6 Astra 99.95%
  • Orak Fading LLM agents play 12 popular video games across most genres through an MCP interface. Each game scores in-game progress or outcomes, and the board ranks models by their average rank across the games. Gemini 2.5 Pro 3.90
  • MineDojo Fading Agents complete open-ended tasks in Minecraft, such as mining blocks and fighting mobs, from a large simulation suite. Programmatic checks score many tasks. Seed2.0 Pro 49%
  • TextQuests Only in system cards Agents play 25 classic interactive fiction games. The score is harmful actions per 100 steps, where lower is better. The board also reports game progress. Llama 4 Scout 7.00
  • GameWorld Only in system cards Multimodal game agents play 34 browser games across 170 tasks. Outcomes are checked from the game state. GPT-6.1 Terra 76.8%
  • Swarm Bench Only in system cards Models orchestrate agent swarms on complex tasks that benefit from coordinated decomposition and parallel execution. Kimi K3 76.3%