Benchmark Almanac

StudentBench

Not in model cards

AI tutors teach real students GRE material and are scored by the students measured learning gains. A second study has expert tutors compare AI lesson plans and practice problems.

13 AI tutors and expert human tutors taught 2,383 participants. Handshake reports AI tutoring as statistically equivalent to expert human tutoring on GRE gains.

In the authors’ words

Artificial intelligence offers an unprecedented opportunity to augment human capabilities, yet progress at the frontier has focused primarily on advancing model capabilities. We introduce StudentBench, a suite of AI teaching evaluations and a public platform that enables large-scale data collection with over 175,000 student-AI messages to study whether large language models (LLMs) produce learning gains equivalent to human tutoring. Using StudentBench, we measured learning gains on Quantitative and Verbal GRE questions across 2,383 human participants receiving AI tutoring, human tutoring, or no tutoring. We establish that AI tutoring is statistically equivalent to expert human tutoring for GRE learning gains (p = .015), and in five of the seven GRE domains, the best performing AI tutor surpassed the human tutor, on average. In a second study, expert human tutors compared LLM-generated lesson plans and practice problems through 2,028 pairwise rubric evaluations. Together, the two studies clearly separate AI tutors across: (1) lesson planning, (2) practice-problem creation, (3) conversational pedagogy, (4) cost, and (5) engagement. Surprisingly, one AI tutor achieved learning gains equivalent to human tutoring (p = .044) at 918 times lower cost (USD 0.0052 for AI versus USD 4.81 for human, per percentage point gained). For Quantitative GRE sessions, faster AI replies correlated with more student messages, more messages with more correct practice, and more correct practice with larger learning gains (all p < .002). To support future research, we open-source the de-identified data collected in our studies.

Abstract of StudentBench: AI and human tutoring yield equivalent GRE learning gains (arXiv:2609.28470, CC0)
Made by Handshake AI Research Released Sep 2026 Other All tasks public
Level
University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
Scored
Settled by events Predictions are scored against what later happens.
Answers
Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.

No scores here yet

We have no scores for StudentBench yet.

See the live leaderboard on joinhandshake.com

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 Other

All 41 in Other
  • Personal Superintelligence Index (Meta) In use Meta's composite of seven personal and knowledge-work evals: Agents' Last Exam, AutomationBench-AA, FocusBench, JobBench, GDP.pdf, VBT and DRACO.
  • Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5 In use Version 5 of Artificial Analysis's index: nine evaluations in four equal categories, most with private test sets, run three times each in its own agent harness. Gemini 4 Carbon 59.0
  • Anthropic ECI (AECI) Only in system cards Index that combines a basket of capability benchmarks into one capability score to track trends across Anthropic models. Claude Opus 5.5 169.4
  • Qwen in-house English automatic evaluation Only in system cards Models answer Qwen in-house English datasets on knowledge, comprehension, coding, math and related skills. Skills and weights change between reports. Qwen2-72B 72.9%
  • Recognition of model-written user turns (Anthropic) Only in system cards Models write synthetic user turns for real Claude Code transcripts, then judge which version is real. Score is accuracy above chance. Claude Mythos Preview 0.35
  • LiveBench Dropped Models answer monthly refreshed questions across math, coding, reasoning, language, instruction following, and data analysis. Scored automatically against objective ground truth. Claude Fable 5.1 85.7%