Benchmark Almanac

TERMS-Bench

Claude Opus 4.6 0.69 leads since May 2026
Not in model cards

Agents negotiate the price of a single item with simulated counterparts over up to 10 rounds of alternating offers. Counterparts follow six behavior families across three regimes. A program scores each agent from its logged actions on four separate axes: surplus captured, agreement calibration, belief error about the opponent and procedural violations. Extra modes score merchant profit and a bankroll over many sessions.

There is no model judge and no composite score, so models are compared axis by axis. The leaderboard data was generated on May 4th, 2026 and covers about a dozen models. No code repository is linked.

Released
May 2026
Kind
Multi-agent games
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.5 #20 on the capability index
Last model added
April 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Negotiation is a central mechanism of economic exchange, shaping markets, procurement, labor agreements, and resource allocation. It is also a canonical testbed for agentic language models, requiring multi-turn interaction under hidden preferences, strategic communication, and binding constraints. These properties make negotiation hard to evaluate: unlike math or code, it has no intrinsic verifier. Existing LLM negotiation evaluations rely on LLM-vs.-LLM interaction or aggregate outcomes such as deal rate, leaving failures opaque. We introduce Terms-Bench, short for Testbed for Economic Reasoning in Multi-turn Strategy, a Bayesian-game framework that makes the environment itself the verifier by specifying the counterpart's latent type, policy, and payoff structure. We instantiate it in bilateral price negotiation, where the counterpart's private state and simulator policy are hidden from the agent but observable to the evaluator. This turns the counterpart from a black-box opponent into a diagnostic instrument, enabling agent-attributable failure analysis and oracle-reference optimality gaps. Evaluating 13 LLM agents spanning frontier systems from major providers, Terms-Bench turns negotiation evaluation from aggregate ranking into actionable diagnosis: where agents fail, why they fail, and what to strengthen. Empirically, frontier models saturate deal rate yet diverge in surplus extraction, cue use, belief calibration, and compliance, revealing agent-specific bargaining bottlenecks masked by prior benchmarks.

Abstract of TERMS-Bench: Diagnosing LLM Negotiation Agents Beyond Deal Rate (arXiv:2605.13909, CC0)
12
Entries on its own leaderboard, 11 models we track

Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 0.69 among models released by April 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 April 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.6 Overall; SE+ 0.69
  2. 2 GLM-5.1 Overall; SE+ 0.69
  3. 3 Claude Opus 4.7 Overall; SE+ 0.66
  4. 4 Gemma 4 31B IT Overall; SE+ 0.64
  5. 5 Gemini 3.1 Pro Overall; SE+ 0.64
  6. 6 DeepSeek-V4-Pro Overall; SE+ 0.62
  7. 7 GPT-5.5 Overall; SE+ 0.61
  8. 8 Qwen 3.6 Plus Overall; SE+ 0.60
  9. 9 Grok 4.20 Overall; SE+ 0.60
  10. 10 Kimi K2.6 Overall; SE+ 0.60
  11. 11 Seed2.0 Pro Overall; SE+ 0.52
  12. 12 GPT-4o mini (snapshot unspecified) Overall; SE+ 0.19

Source: Official TERMS-Bench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.6 0.69 Overall; SE+ Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GLM-5.1 0.69 Overall; SE+ Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Opus 4.7 0.66 Overall; SE+ Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Gemma 4 31B IT 0.64 Overall; SE+ Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0.64 Overall; SE+ Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
6 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 0.62 Overall; SE+ Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-5.5 0.61 Overall; SE+ Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen 3.6 Plus 0.60 Overall; SE+ Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Grok 4.20 0.60 Overall; SE+ Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Kimi K2.6 0.60 Overall; SE+ Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Seed2.0 Pro 0.52 Overall; SE+ Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
12 GPT-4o mini (snapshot unspecified) 0.19 Overall; SE+ Official leaderboard

Number one over time

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

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2026

Source: Official TERMS-Bench leaderboard

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
0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 2026 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 2026

Source: Official TERMS-Bench 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 Games and long tasks

All 82 in Games and long tasks
  • ARC-AGI-3 In use Interactive game environments where agents must explore, infer goals and rules, and act efficiently without instructions. GPT-6 Astra 99.95%
  • Orak Fading LLM agents play 12 popular video games across most genres through an MCP interface. Each game scores in-game progress or outcomes, and the board ranks models by their average rank across the games. Gemini 2.5 Pro 3.90
  • MineDojo Fading Agents complete open-ended tasks in Minecraft, such as mining blocks and fighting mobs, from a large simulation suite. Programmatic checks score many tasks. Seed2.0 Pro 49%
  • TextQuests Only in system cards Agents play 25 classic interactive fiction games. The score is harmful actions per 100 steps, where lower is better. The board also reports game progress. Llama 4 Scout 7.00
  • GameWorld Only in system cards Multimodal game agents play 34 browser games across 170 tasks. Outcomes are checked from the game state. GPT-6.1 Terra 76.8%
  • Swarm Bench Only in system cards Models orchestrate agent swarms on complex tasks that benefit from coordinated decomposition and parallel execution. Kimi K3 76.3%