Benchmark Almanac

METR Time Horizon

Claude Opus 4.5 4.1 h leads since Nov 2025 Only in system cards

Agents attempt software and research tasks timed against skilled humans. The score is the human task length at which the agent succeeds half the time.

Time Horizon 1.0 used 170 tasks in Vivaria. METR replaced it with Time Horizon 1.1 in January 2026 and re-estimated 14 models.

In the authors’ words

Despite rapid progress on AI benchmarks, the real-world meaning of benchmark performance remains unclear. To quantify the capabilities of AI systems in terms of human capabilities, we propose a new metric: 50%-task-completion time horizon. This is the time humans typically take to complete tasks that AI models can complete with 50% success rate. We first timed humans with relevant domain expertise on a combination of RE-Bench, HCAST, and 66 novel shorter tasks. On these tasks, current frontier AI models such as Claude 3.7 Sonnet have a 50% time horizon of around 50 minutes. Furthermore, frontier AI time horizon has been doubling approximately every seven months since 2019, though the trend may have accelerated in 2024. The increase in AI models' time horizons seems to be primarily driven by greater reliability and ability to adapt to mistakes, combined with better logical reasoning and tool use capabilities. We discuss the limitations of our results – including their degree of external validity – and the implications of increased autonomy for dangerous capabilities. If these results generalize to real-world software tasks, extrapolation of this trend predicts that within 5 years, AI systems will be capable of automating many software tasks that currently take humans a month.

Abstract of Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks (arXiv:2503.14499, CC0)
Made by METR Released Mar 2025 Task length Last in a system card Jul 2026 Last model added Jul 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
Research frontier Researchers, on open problems or tasks that take days
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.
31
Models scored on its own leaderboard
7
System cards report it, from 1 lab

Claude Opus 4.5 leads with 4.1 h among models released by Nov 2025

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 Nov 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.5 4.1 h
  2. 2 GPT-5.1-Codex-Max 2.7 h
  3. 3 GPT-5 2.2 h
  4. 4 Claude Sonnet 4.5 117 min
  5. 5 Claude Opus 4.1 109 min
  6. 6 Grok 4 105 min
  7. 7 o3 91 min
  8. 8 Claude Opus 4 84 min
  9. 9 Claude Sonnet 4 74 min
  10. 10 Kimi K2 Thinking 58 min
  11. 11 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 55 min
  12. 12 o1 42 min
  13. 13 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 40 min
  14. 14 DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 33 min
  15. 15 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) 30 min
  16. 16 DeepSeek-R1 28 min
  17. 17 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 25 min
  18. 18 o1-preview 23 min
  19. 19 DeepSeek-V3 20 min
  20. 20 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20 min
  21. 21 GPT-4o May 2024 10 min
  22. 22 GPT-4 Turbo Nov 2023 9.4 min
  23. 23 GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 7.8 min
  24. 24 Claude 3 Opus 7.1 min
  25. 25 GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) 6.3 min
  26. 26 GPT-4 Mar 2023 6.0 min
  27. 27 Qwen2.5-72B 5.8 min
  28. 28 Qwen2-72B 2.5 min
  29. 29 GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct 0.6 min
  30. 30 davinci-002 0.1 min
  31. 31 GPT-2 (1.5B) 0.1 min
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.5 4.1 h generate Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.1-Codex-Max 2.7 h generate Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5 2.2 h Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Sonnet 4.5 117 min Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Opus 4.1 109 min Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Grok 4 105 min Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
7 o3 91 min Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Opus 4 84 min May 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Claude Sonnet 4 74 min May 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Kimi K2 Thinking 58 min generate Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 55 min Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
12 o1 42 min Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
13 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 40 min Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
14 DeepSeek-R1 May 2025 33 min May 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Claude 3.5 Sonnet (October 2024) 30 min Oct 2024 Official leaderboard
16 DeepSeek-R1 28 min Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
17 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 25 min Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
18 o1-preview 23 min Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
19 DeepSeek-V3 20 min Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
20 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 20 min Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
21 GPT-4o May 2024 10 min May 2024 Official leaderboard
22 GPT-4 Turbo Nov 2023 9.4 min Nov 2023 Official leaderboard
23 GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 7.8 min Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
24 Claude 3 Opus 7.1 min Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
25 GPT-4 Turbo (Jan 2024) 6.3 min Jan 2024 Official leaderboard
26 GPT-4 Mar 2023 6.0 min Mar 2023 Official leaderboard
27 Qwen2.5-72B 5.8 min Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
28 Qwen2-72B 2.5 min Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
29 GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct 0.6 min Sep 2023 Official leaderboard
30 davinci-002 0.1 min Mar 2022 Official leaderboard
31 GPT-2 (1.5B) 0.1 min Nov 2019 Official leaderboard

Epoch AI has scores for 39 models. We plot every source in the charts below.

7 models have held number one since its release in Mar 2025

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 Epoch AI’s runs.

Anthropic OpenAI xAI Google DeepMind
Own leaderboard Replaced by 1.1, Jan 2026
Epoch AI runs Replaced by 1.1, Apr 2026

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 Run or collected by Epoch AI
0.0 min 0.1 min 1.0 min 10 min 100 min 16.7 h 166.7 h 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 0.0 min 0.1 min 1.0 min 10 min 100 min 16.7 h 166.7 h 2020 2022 2024 2026

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

7 system cards report it, from 1 lab

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
9 Jul 2026 GPT-5.6 Sol system card METR Time Horizon 1.1, METR did not treat the result as robust because of detected cheating, no number (9.1.3.6) AI R&D risk
25 Jun 2026 GPT-5.6 Sol system card METR Time Horizon 1.1, METR did not treat the result as robust because of detected cheating, no number (9.1.3.6) AI R&D risk
18 Nov 2025 GPT-5.1-Codex-Max system card 162 METR 50% time horizon, point estimate 2h42m, range 75 to 350 minutes (5.1.3.6) Autonomy
7 Aug 2025 GPT-5 system card 135 METR 50%-time horizon of about 2h15m (95% CI 65m to 4h30m) (5.1.3.7) Autonomy
16 Apr 2025 o4-mini system card 75 METR time horizon score, 50% reliability, about 1 hour 15 minutes (3.9.1) Autonomy
16 Apr 2025 o3 system card 90 METR time horizon score, 50% reliability, about 1 hour 30 minutes (3.9.1) Autonomy
27 Feb 2025 GPT-4.5 system card 30 METR time horizon score, 50% reliability, around 30 minutes (Figure 1 caption, 3.4) Autonomy

Versions

More in AI research

All 83 in AI research
  • MLS-Bench In use Agent must invent one algorithmic change in an ML research scaffold whose gain transfers across settings. Scored relative to human baselines. Claude Fable 5.1 50.3%
  • PaperBench In use Agent replicates ICML 2024 papers from scratch. LLM judge grades against author-written hierarchical rubrics. Qwen 3.8 Max 93%
  • MLE-bench In use Kaggle-style ML engineering competitions. Agent trains models and is scored against competition leaderboards. GPT-6 Astra 93.8%
  • PostTrainBench 1.2 In use CLI agent gets a base model, one H100 and a time budget to post-train it for a target benchmark. Scored on normalized gain. Claude Fable 5.1 44.6%
  • KernelBench In use Replace PyTorch operators with faster custom GPU kernels. Scored on correctness and speedup. MiniMax-M3 28.8%
  • OpenAI PRs Only in system cards Agents replicate internal OpenAI pull requests from a pre-PR branch and a prompt. Graded by hidden unit tests as pass@1. GPT-5.2 55%