Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agents work for up to 3 hours per task on 77 container tasks, including 30 tasks that rebuild a scientific tool from its outputs. Hidden verifiers give partial-credit rewards.
It keeps the 46 original tasks and adds 31 new ones. The maker says scores are not comparable with the July 2026 snapshot, which used a 90 minute budget. 15 models in the October 2026 results.
In the authors’ words
AI agents have become capable of autonomously completing short, well-specified tasks. However, existing terminal benchmarks largely focus on simple problems that finish within minutes and are evaluated only by their final outcome. This setup overlooks intermediate progress and partial solutions, yielding sparse reward signals and an incomplete picture of agent capability. We introduce Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench, a terminal benchmark of 46 long-horizon tasks spanning nine categories, including experiment reproduction, software engineering, multimodal analysis, interactive games, and scientific computing. Each task follows a Terminal-Bench-style setup with a reference solution or simulation engine, but is further decomposed into fine-grained graded subtasks. This design enables dense intermediate rewards and partial credit, allowing evaluation to capture not only whether an agent reaches the final goal, but also how far it progresses on open-ended workflows. Tasks in Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench typically require hundreds of episodes and minutes to hours of execution, stressing long-horizon planning, long-context management, and iterative debugging rather than one-shot problem solving. We evaluate 15 frontier models and find that agents consume on average 9.9M tokens per task, with roughly 231 episodes and 85.3 minutes of execution time per run, making Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench more demanding than prior terminal-based benchmarks. Even the strongest tested model achieves 15.2% pass@1 at a partial-reward threshold of 0.95 and 10.9% at a perfect-reward threshold of 1.0, while the mean pass rate across models is 4.3% and 1.7% under the two thresholds, respectively. These results reveal headroom for improvement. We further analyze failure modes and error patterns, and release Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench to support future progress on long-horizon terminal agents.
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- 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.
GPT-6 Astra leads with 69.2% among models released by Sep 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 Sep 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- and 13 more
- 1 GPT-6 Astra 69.2%
- 2 GPT-5.6 Sol 67.2%
- 3 Kimi K3 56.8%
- 4 GLM-5.3 54.2%
- 5
Tencent Hy4 preview 53.2%
- 6
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 52.9%
- 7
DeepSeek-V4-Flash 52.4%
- 8 GLM-5.2 50.3%
- 9
Gemini 3.8 Flash 47.4%
- 10
MiniMax-M3 46.9%
- 11
Seed2.1 Pro 46.4%
- 12
Qwen 3.8 Max 43.5%
- 13 Kimi K2.6 42%
- 14 Grok 4.6 42%
- 15
Gemini 3.1 Pro 41.3%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-6 Astra | 69.2% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 67.2% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Kimi K3 | 56.8% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | GLM-5.3 | 54.2% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 53.2% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 52.9% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 52.4% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | GLM-5.2 | 50.3% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 47.4% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | | 46.9% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 46.4% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 43.5% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | Kimi K2.6 | 42% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | Grok 4.6 | 42% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 41.3% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
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.
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.
Versions
We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.
More in Terminal agents
- Terminal-Bench 4.0 In use Agents complete 66 hard tasks in containerized terminals across software, ML, science, security, and operations. Test scripts verify each result, scored as resolution rate. Claude Opus 5.5 64.8%
- SkillsBench In use 86-87 containerized expert tasks in 11 domains, run with and without Agent Skills. Verifier tests give pass rate and skill lift. GPT-5.5 67.3%
- Terminal-Bench Hard In use Agents complete 44 hard tasks from Terminal-Bench Core in the Terminus 2 harness. Artificial Analysis scores pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats.
Gemma 4 31B IT 36%
- Harbor-Index In use Agents solve about 80 hard tasks drawn from 29 benchmarks run through Harbor adapters, such as HLE, GSO and SWE-bench Pro. Each task keeps its source verifier. GPT-5.5 28.1%
- CompileBench Not in model cards Agents build real open-source projects through dependency problems, legacy toolchains and complex build systems, for example compiling 22-year-old code. Claude Opus 4.1 100%
- ITBench Not in model cards Agents handle IT automation tasks in Kubernetes environments: site reliability incidents, compliance and security checks, and cloud cost work.
Gemini 3 Pro 58.3%