Structured Output Benchmark
Models turn a text context into JSON that must match a given schema and hold the right values. The 5,324 records come from multi-hop questions, OCR text of documents and meeting transcripts, all given to the model as text. Seven automatic metrics, such as value accuracy, faithfulness and JSON validity, combine into an overall score that weights hard schemas more.
Interfaze sells extraction models and ranks two of its own models on its leaderboard of 30. Runs use temperature 0 with reasoning off, and a few models could only run at their lowest reasoning setting. The text records come from HotpotQA, the image records from olmOCR-bench and the audio records from AMI meetings. About 30 GitHub stars.
- Made by
- Interfaze (JigsawStack)
- Released
- April 2026
- Kind
- Following precise instructions
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Short answer
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.5 #20 on the capability index
- Last model added
- June 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Large Language Models are increasingly being deployed to extract structured data from unstructured and semi-structured sources: parsing invoices, medical records, and converting PDF documents to database entries. Yet existing benchmarks for structured output generation either focus on schema compliance alone, or evaluate value correctness within a single source domain. We introduce SOB (The Structured Output Benchmark), a multi-source benchmark spanning three source modalities: native text, images, and audio conversations. All models receive a text-normalized representation of their context regardless of source modality; this deliberate design isolates structured-output capability from raw vision or speech-processing quality, ensuring a fair, source-agnostic comparison. Our benchmark comprises 5,000 text evaluation records derived from multi-hop QA drawn from a 25,091-record full corpus, 209 image records from OCR-processed PDFs across seven document types including multi-column layouts, dense tables, scanned historical documents, small-print text, and mathematical typesetting, and 115 audio records from the AMI corpus. Each record pairs a natural-language question with a JSON schema that the model must follow and a ground-truth answer verified against the source context. We evaluate 21 frontier and open-weight models across three source domains and seven metrics. Our results reveal a consistent pattern: models achieve near-perfect schema compliance, yet the best Value Accuracy, measured by exact leaf-value match, reaches only 83.0% on text, 67.2% on images, and 23.7% on audio, where longer context makes extraction substantially harder. We release the dataset, evaluation pipeline, and all related code.
GPT-5.4 leads with 87% among models released by June 2026
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
The newest model with a score here came out in June 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 15 more
- 87.0 GPT-5.4
- 86.9 Interfaze-1.1-Lite
- 86.9
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 86.6 GLM-5.1
- 86.4 Claude Opus 4.7
- 86.2 Claude Sonnet 5
- 86.1 Qwen3.5-35B
- 86.1 GLM-4.7
- 86.0 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified)
- 86.0 Interfaze-1
- 86.0 GPT-5.5
- 85.7 Qwen3-235B
- 85.4 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 85.3 Kimi-2.6
- 85.3 Claude Opus 4.6
- 85.3
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 85.0 GPT-4.1
- 84.9 GPT-5
- 84.7
Gemma 3 27B
- 84.2 Qwen3-30B
- 84.1 Nemotron-3-Nano-30B
- 83.5 GPT-5 mini
- 83.3
Gemini 3 Flash
- 83.3
Gemma 4 31B IT
- 83.2 IBM-Granite-4.0
- 83.2 Schematron-8B
- 83.1
Phi-4
- 82.7 DS-R1-Distill-32B
- 77.8
Ministral 3 14B
- 73.2 gpt-oss-20b
- 1 GPT-5.4 minimum-reasoning protocol 87%
- 2 Interfaze-1.1-Lite minimum-reasoning protocol 86.9%
- 3
Gemini 3.1 Pro minimum-reasoning protocol 86.9%
- 4 GLM-5.1 minimum-reasoning protocol 86.6%
- 5 Claude Opus 4.7 minimum-reasoning protocol 86.4%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 5 minimum-reasoning protocol 86.2%
- 7 Qwen3.5-35B minimum-reasoning protocol 86.1%
- 8 GLM-4.7 minimum-reasoning protocol 86.1%
- 9 Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) minimum-reasoning protocol 86%
- 10 Interfaze-1 minimum-reasoning protocol 86%
- 11 GPT-5.5 minimum-reasoning protocol 86%
- 12 Qwen3-235B minimum-reasoning protocol 85.7%
- 13 Claude Sonnet 4.6 minimum-reasoning protocol 85.4%
- 14 Kimi-2.6 minimum-reasoning protocol 85.3%
- 15 Claude Opus 4.6 minimum-reasoning protocol 85.3%
- 16
DeepSeek-V4-Pro minimum-reasoning protocol 85.3%
- 17 GPT-4.1 minimum-reasoning protocol 85%
- 18 GPT-5 minimum-reasoning protocol 84.9%
- 19
Gemma 3 27B minimum-reasoning protocol 84.7%
- 20 Qwen3-30B minimum-reasoning protocol 84.2%
- 21 Nemotron-3-Nano-30B minimum-reasoning protocol 84.1%
- 22 GPT-5 mini minimum-reasoning protocol 83.5%
- 23
Gemini 3 Flash minimum-reasoning protocol 83.3%
- 24
Gemma 4 31B IT minimum-reasoning protocol 83.3%
- 25 IBM-Granite-4.0 minimum-reasoning protocol 83.2%
- 26 Schematron-8B minimum-reasoning protocol 83.2%
- 27
Phi-4 minimum-reasoning protocol 83.1%
- 28 DS-R1-Distill-32B minimum-reasoning protocol 82.7%
- 29
Ministral 3 14B minimum-reasoning protocol 77.8%
- 30 gpt-oss-20b minimum-reasoning protocol 73.2%
Source: Official Structured Output Benchmark leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5.4 | 87% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | Interfaze-1.1-Lite | 86.9% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 86.9% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | GLM-5.1 | 86.6% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 86.4% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Claude Sonnet 5 | 86.2% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | Qwen3.5-35B | 86.1% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | GLM-4.7 | 86.1% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | Gemini-2.5-Flash (snapshot unspecified) | 86% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | Interfaze-1 | 86% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | GPT-5.5 | 86% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | Qwen3-235B | 85.7% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 85.4% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | Kimi-2.6 | 85.3% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 85.3% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | | 85.3% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | GPT-4.1 | 85% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | GPT-5 | 84.9% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | | 84.7% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | Qwen3-30B | 84.2% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | Nemotron-3-Nano-30B | 84.1% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | GPT-5 mini | 83.5% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | | 83.3% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 24 | | 83.3% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 25 | IBM-Granite-4.0 | 83.2% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | Schematron-8B | 83.2% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | | 83.1% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 28 | DS-R1-Distill-32B | 82.7% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | | 77.8% | minimum-reasoning protocol | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 30 | gpt-oss-20b | 73.2% | minimum-reasoning protocol | 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.
Source: Official Structured Output Benchmark leaderboard
GPT-4.1 on the official leaderboard passed 85% in April 2025
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official Structured Output Benchmark leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Instructions and chat
- IFEval In use Models answer about 500 prompts containing verifiable instructions such as word limits or required keywords. Code checks each instruction for strict and loose accuracy.
Gemma 4 31B IT 98.9%
- IFBench In use 58 new out-of-domain verifiable output constraints. Scored by programmatic constraint checks (strict or loose).
Nemotron-Cascade 2 30B-A3B 82.9%
- MultiChallenge In use Multi-turn conversations testing instruction retention, inference memory, versioned editing and self-coherence. Graded by LLM judge with rubrics. GPT-6.1 Sol 82%
- Multi-IF In use Models follow verifiable instructions over three-turn conversations in eight languages, extending IFEval. Scored by instruction accuracy at each turn. LFM3-1.7B 89.1%
- AdvancedIF In use Models respond to over 1,600 prompts with complex, multi-turn, and system-level instructions. A judge model checks each response against expert-written rubrics.
MAI-Thinking-1 85%
- IFStruct In use Models generate JSON or YAML that must follow a requested schema and phrasing constraints, without constrained decoding. A response passes only if every structural constraint holds.
Gemma 4 31B IT 95.9%