OJBench
Models write C++ or Python solutions to 232 competition problems from NOI and ICPC. Judge test cases score each solution by pass@1.
In the authors’ words
Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant progress in math and code reasoning capabilities. However, existing code benchmark are limited in their ability to evaluate the full spectrum of these capabilities, particularly at the competitive level. To bridge this gap, we introduce OJBench, a novel and challenging benchmark designed to assess the competitive-level code reasoning abilities of LLMs. OJBench comprises 232 programming competition problems from NOI and ICPC, providing a more rigorous test of models' reasoning skills. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation using OJBench on 37 models, including both closed-source and open-source models, reasoning-oriented and non-reasoning-oriented models. Our results indicate that even state-of-the-art reasoning-oriented models, such as o4-mini and Gemini-2.5-pro-exp, struggle with highly challenging competition-level problems. This highlights the significant challenges that models face in competitive-level code reasoning.
- Level
- Competition The strongest students, in olympiad-style contests
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Code A program or patch run against tests.
Gemini 3 Pro leads with 70% among models released by Feb 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 Feb 2026, 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
- 1
Gemini 3 Pro 70%
- 2 Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 67.2%
- 3 Kimi K2.5 thinking 57%
- 4 GLM-5 54.9%
- 5
Seed2.0 Pro 54.9%
- 6
DeepSeek-V3.2 51.7%
- 7 GLM-4.7 50.8%
- 8
MiniMax-M2.5 41.4%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 70% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 67.2% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | Kimi K2.5 | 57% | thinking | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | GLM-5 | 54.9% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 54.9% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 51.7% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | GLM-4.7 | 50.8% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 41.4% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 12 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.
Number one over time
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 what labs claim in their cards.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs headline it less often now, last in May 2026
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 May 2026 | 39.2 | OJBench | |
| 20 Apr 2026 | Kimi K2.6 | 60.6 | OJBench (python) |
| 24 Feb 2026 | 39.5 | OJBench | |
| 27 Jan 2026 | Kimi K2.5 | 57.4 | OJBench (cpp) |
| 14 Jan 2026 | 42.2 | OJBench (Pass@1) | |
| 6 Nov 2025 | Kimi K2 Thinking | 48.7 | OJ-Bench (cpp), no tools |
| 21 Sep 2025 | 40.7 | OJBench(Mean@1) | |
| 11 Sep 2025 | 29.7 | OJBench | |
| 25 Jul 2025 | 32.5 | OJBench | |
| 11 Jul 2025 | Kimi K2 | 27.1 | OJBench, Pass@1 |
7 system cards report it, from 4 labs
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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 Jun 2026 | | 71.5 | OJBench (Table 3 and Section 6.2.1 text). Figure 5 prints 39.2 for the same row | Capabilities |
| 28 Feb 2026 | | 23 | OJBench (Table 6) | Capabilities |
| 30 Jan 2026 | Kimi K2.5 technical report | 57.4 | OJBench (cpp) (Table 4) | Capabilities |
| 23 Jan 2026 | | 42.2 | OJBench (Pass@1) (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| 26 Nov 2025 | | 27.5 | OJBench (Table 6) | Capabilities |
| 23 Sep 2025 | | 40.7 | OJBench(Mean@1) (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| 21 Jul 2025 | Kimi K2 technical report | 27.1 | OJBench (Pass@1) (Table 3) | Capabilities |
More in Coding
- SWE-bench Verified In use 500 human-validated GitHub issues from 12 Python repos. Agent writes a patch that must pass hidden tests. Claude Opus 4.7 83.5%
- SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Opus 5.5 93.9%
- LiveCodeBench v6 In use Competitive programming problems collected after model cutoffs from LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces. Scored pass@1 on hidden tests.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 93.5%
- DeepSWE In use 113 original long-horizon engineering tasks across 91 repos and five languages, written from scratch. Hand-written verifiers accept alternative solutions. GPT-6 Astra 74.1%
- SciCode In use Scientist-curated research coding problems split into subproblems across natural sciences. Code checked against test cases.
Seed2.1 Pro 59.8%
- Codeforces rating In use Model solves recent Codeforces contest problems. An Elo-style rating is computed from simulated contest performance.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 3,471