Benchmark Almanac

StockBench

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025 2.50% leads since Oct 2025 Not in model cards

Agents get daily prices, fundamentals and news over months and decide to buy, sell or hold. Scoring uses cumulative return, maximum drawdown and related metrics.

Built to be contamination-free by using recent market windows. 58 HF paper upvotes and about 180 GitHub stars.

In the authors’ words

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong potential as autonomous agents, with promising capabilities in reasoning, tool use, and sequential decision-making. While prior benchmarks have evaluated LLM agents in various domains, the financial domain remains underexplored, despite its significant economic value and complex reasoning requirements. Most existing financial benchmarks focus on static question-answering, failing to capture the dynamics of real-market trading. To address this gap, we introduce STOCKBENCH, a contamination-free benchmark designed to evaluate LLM agents in realistic, multi-month stock trading environments. Agents receive daily market signals – including prices, fundamentals, and news – and make sequential buy, sell, or hold decisions. Performance is measured using financial metrics such as cumulative return, maximum drawdown, and the Sortino ratio, capturing both profitability and risk management. We evaluate a wide range of state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source LLMs. Surprisingly, most models struggle to outperform the simple buy-and-hold baseline, while some models demonstrate the potential to achieve higher returns and stronger risk management. These findings highlight both the challenges and opportunities of LLM-based trading agents, showing that strong performance on static financial question-answering do not necessarily translate into effective trading behavior. We release STOCKBENCH as an open-source benchmark to enable future research on LLM-driven financial agents.

Abstract of StockBench: Can LLM Agents Trade Stocks Profitably In Real-world Markets? (arXiv:2510.02209, CC0)
Made by StockBench authors Released Oct 2025 Finance All tasks public Last model added Sep 2025 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
Scored
Settled by events Predictions are scored against what later happens.
Answers
Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
13
Models scored on its own leaderboard

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking leads with 2.50% among models released by Sep 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 Sep 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 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025 2.50%
  2. 2 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025 2.40%
  3. 3 GLM-4.5 2.30%
  4. 4 Claude Sonnet 4 2.20%
  5. 5 Qwen3-30B-A3B-Thinking Jul 2025 2.10%
  6. 6 o3 1.90%
  7. 7 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 1.90%
  8. 8 DeepSeek-V3.1 1.10%
  9. 9 GPT-5 0.30%
  10. 10 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 0.20%
  11. 11 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 0.20%
  12. 12 gpt-oss-120b -0.90%
  13. 13 gpt-oss-20b -2.80%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025 2.50% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
2 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025 2.40% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
3 GLM-4.5 2.30% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Sonnet 4 2.20% May 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Qwen3-30B-A3B-Thinking Jul 2025 2.10% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
6 o3 1.90% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 1.90% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
8 DeepSeek-V3.1 1.10% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-5 0.30% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
10 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 0.20% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 0.20% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
12 gpt-oss-120b -0.90% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
13 gpt-oss-20b -2.80% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard

Number one over time

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

Qwen
Own leaderboard Not tested since Oct 2025

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% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Claude Sonnet 4 DeepSeek-V3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking

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.

More in Law, finance and medicine

All 140 in Law, finance and medicine
  • HealthBench Professional In use 525 physician-authored tasks from real clinician chats (care consult, documentation, research) with physician-adjudicated rubrics. Claude Sonnet 5.5 69.2%
  • MedXpertQA-MM In use Models answer expert-level medical exam questions that combine images with clinical records and test results. Scoring is accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 80.4%
  • HealthBench In use 5,000 realistic health conversations graded against physician-written rubrics. A length-adjusted variant penalizes verbosity. GPT-5 67.2%
  • KBL In use Models answer Korean legal knowledge and reasoning tasks and Korean bar exam questions. It has 7 knowledge tasks, 4 reasoning tasks and 2,510 bar exam items. Solar Pro 4 77.5%
  • KorMedMCQA In use Models answer 7,469 multiple-choice questions from Korean licensing exams for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists, held from 2012 to 2024. Solar Pro 4 93.2%
  • PRBench In use Model answers 1,100 expert-written law and finance questions. LLM judge grades against weighted expert rubrics of 10-30 criteria each. Muse Spark 1.3 61.6%