Benchmark Almanac

SaaS-Bench

Kimi K3 60.1% In use

106 long-horizon GUI workflows across 23 locally deployed real SaaS apps. Scored from app databases with weighted checkpoints and full-resolution rate.

The best agent fully completed under 4% of tasks at launch. Release v1.1 on 2026-10-02 kept the 106 tasks, fixed verifiers and task text, and added native agent harnesses. The top Resolved Score on the v1.1 board is 31.1%.

In the authors’ words

Computer-Using Agents (CUAs) are rapidly extending large language models (LLMs) beyond text-based reasoning toward action execution in more complex environments, such as web browsers and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). However, existing web and GUI agent benchmarks often rely on simplified settings, isolated tasks, or short-horizon interactions, making it difficult to assess capabilities of agents in realistic professional workflows. Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) environments are a natural choice for CUA evaluation, as they host a large share of modern digital work and naturally involve dynamic system states, cross-application coordination, domain-specific knowledge, and long-horizon dependencies. To this end, we introduce SaaS-Bench, a benchmark built on 23 deployable SaaS systems across six professional domains, containing 106 tasks grounded in realistic work scenarios. These tasks require long-horizon execution, cover both text-only and multimodal settings, and are evaluated with weighted verification checkpoints that measure strict task completion and partial progress. Experiments show that representative LLM-based agents struggle on SaaS-Bench, with even the strongest model completing fewer than 4% of tasks end-to-end, exposing limitations in planning, state tracking, cross-application context maintenance, and error recovery. Code are available at https://github.com/UniPat-AI/SaaS-Bench for reproduction.

Abstract of SaaS-Bench: Can Computer-Use Agents Leverage Real-World SaaS to Solve Professional Workflows? (arXiv:2605.15777, CC0)
Made by UniPat AI + Peking University Released May 2026 Web browsing All tasks public Last in a launch post Jul 2026 Last model added Aug 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
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.
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Kimi K3 leads with 60.1%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 Kimi K3 60.1%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Kimi K3 60.1% Jul 2026 Model card

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 5 entries, 4 of them models we track. We plot every source in the charts below.

The best score, 31.1%, costs $27 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

OpenAI Moonshot AI Anthropic Qwen Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% $1.00 $2.00 $5.00 $10 $20 $50 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5 GPT-5.6 Sol Kimi K3 Qwen 3.8 Max Qwen 3.8 Max 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5 Kimi K3
ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 5 Claude Code 31.1% $27
GPT-5.6 Sol Codex 29.2% $21
Kimi K3 Kimi-CLI 24.5% $9.40
Qwen 3.8 Max Qwen Code 23.6% $5.10
Claude Opus 5 Browser-Use (Open-Source) 21.7% $20
GPT-5.6 Sol Browser-Use (Open-Source) 17.9% $15
Kimi K3 Browser-Use (Open-Source) 17% $6.80
Qwen 3.8 Max Browser-Use (Open-Source) 8.50% $2.50

2 models have held number one since its release in May 2026

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

OpenAI Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Aug 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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) Kimi K3 GPT-5.6 Sol 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) Kimi K3 GPT-5.6 Sol

One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months

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.

Moonshot AI
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
16 Jul 2026 Kimi K3 60.1 SaaS-Bench

One system card reports it

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
27 Jul 2026 Kimi K3 technical report 60.1 SaaS-Bench (Table 2) Capabilities

More in Computer and browser use

All 56 in Computer and browser use
  • BrowseComp In use Hard-to-find facts that need persistent web browsing. Short verifiable answers graded for exact correctness. Claude Fable 5 93.3%
  • ScreenSpot-Pro In use GUI grounding on high-resolution professional-software screenshots. The model must locate the target UI element. GPT-6 Astra 92.7%
  • AndroidWorld In use Agents complete 116 tasks across 20 real Android apps in an emulator. Each task checks the device's system state to judge success. GPT-6 Astra 100%
  • OSWorld 2.1 In use Agents complete 108 long-horizon workflows across 31 self-hosted websites and desktop apps, averaging 318 tool calls. Scored by binary completion and checkpoint partial credit. Claude Opus 5.5 81.8%
  • WebArena-Verified In use Agents complete 812 audited WebArena tasks on self-hosted websites. Deterministic evaluators check the agent's answer and captured network traces. Muse Spark 1.1 69%
  • MobileWorld In use Agents complete 201 tasks across 20 mobile apps, including tasks that need user clarification or MCP tools. Backend checks verify success. Kimi K3 74.4%