Vals Finance Agent v1
Agents answer 537 financial analyst questions on public company SEC filings using search and filing tools. An LLM judge grades each final answer.
Splits are 50 public, 150 licensable validation and 337 private test questions. Vals froze the v1 board on 2026-02-10 when v1.1 replaced it.
In the authors’ words
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has emerged as a transformative force in financial analysis and the finance industry, though significant questions remain about the full capabilities of Large Language Model (LLM) agents in this domain. We present the Finance Agent Benchmark, featuring challenging and diverse real-world finance research problems that require LLMs to perform complex analysis using recent SEC filings. We construct the benchmark using a taxonomy of nine financial task categories, developed in consultation with experts from banks, hedge funds, and private equity firms. The dataset includes 537 expert-authored questions covering tasks from information retrieval to complex financial modeling, each validated through a rigorous review process to ensure accuracy and relevance. Moreover, we implement an agentic harness that equips LLMs with tools sufficient to produce accurate responses, including Google Search and EDGAR database access. Overall, the Finance Agent Benchmark provides a comprehensive testbed for measuring the progress of LLM-driven finance agents. Our evaluation reveals significant limitations in current AI capabilities - even the best-performing model (OpenAI o3) achieved only 46.8% accuracy at an average cost of $3.79 per query. This underscores the need for further advancements before reliable deployment in high-stakes finance settings.
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 60.6% among models released by Feb 2026
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. Every run is in the next chart.
The newest model with a score here came out in Feb 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 60.6 Claude Opus 4.6
- 56.5 GPT-5.1
- 55.3 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 55.2 Claude Opus 4.5
- 52.8 GPT-5.2
- 50.9 Claude Opus 4.1
- 49.2 Kimi K2.5
- 47.7 o3
- 46.9 GPT-5
- 44.5 Claude Sonnet 4
- 44.1
Gemini 3 Pro
- 44.1 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 44.0 Grok 4.1 Fast
- 43.6 Claude Opus 4
- 43.2
Qwen3-Max
- 43.0 Claude Haiku 4.5
- 41.9 GLM-4.7
- 40.3 Grok 4
- 39.3
Gemini 3 Flash
- 37.1 Grok 4 Fast
- 35.9 o4-mini
- 31.7 Grok-3 mini
- 31.2
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 29.7
MiniMax-M2.1
- 29.4
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 28.3 gpt-oss-120b
- 27.1 GLM-4.6
- 26.0 Kimi K2 Thinking
- 24.6 GPT-4.1
- 24.1 Grok 3
- 23.5
Mistral Large 3
- 20.8 GPT-4.1 mini
- 20.8 o1
- 19.3 GPT-4o
- 18.2
Magistral Medium 1.2
- 14.3 Claude 3.5 Haiku
- 13.2
Gemini 2.0 Flash
- 12.7 o3-mini
- 10.8 GPT-4o mini
- 10.0
Mistral Small 3.1
- 8.85
Mistral Medium 3.1
- 7.46
Magistral Medium 1.0
- 4.29
Cohere Command A
- 3.63
Llama 4 Maverick
- 3.36
Llama 3.3 70B
- 2.47 GPT-4.1 nano
- 1.74 Jamba 1.6 Mini
- 1 Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 60.6%
- 2 GPT-5.1 56.5%
- 3 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 55.3%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 55.2%
- 5 GPT-5.2 52.8%
- 6 Claude Opus 4.1 thinking 50.9%
- 7 Kimi K2.5 thinking 49.2%
- 8 o3 47.7%
- 9 GPT-5 46.9%
- 10 Claude Sonnet 4 thinking 44.5%
- 11
Gemini 3 Pro 44.1%
- 12 Claude 3.7 Sonnet thinking 44.1%
- 13 Grok 4.1 Fast reasoning 44%
- 14 Claude Opus 4 thinking 43.6%
- 15
Qwen3-Max 43.2%
- 16 Claude Haiku 4.5 thinking 43%
- 17 GLM-4.7 41.9%
- 18 Grok 4 40.3%
- 19
Gemini 3 Flash 39.3%
- 20 Grok 4 Fast reasoning 37.1%
- 21 o4-mini 35.9%
- 22 Grok-3 mini reasoning 31.7%
- 23
Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025, non-thinking 31.2%
- 24
MiniMax-M2.1 29.7%
- 25
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 29.4%
- 26 gpt-oss-120b 28.3%
- 27 GLM-4.6 27.1%
- 28 Kimi K2 Thinking 26%
- 29 GPT-4.1 24.6%
- 30 Grok 3 24.1%
- 31
Mistral Large 3 23.5%
- 32 GPT-4.1 mini 20.8%
- 33 o1 20.8%
- 34 GPT-4o Aug 2024 19.3%
- 35
Magistral Medium 1.2 18.2%
- 36 Claude 3.5 Haiku 14.3%
- 37
Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 13.2%
- 38 o3-mini 12.7%
- 39 GPT-4o mini 10.8%
- 40
Mistral Small 3.1 10%
- 41
Mistral Medium 3.1 8.85%
- 42
Magistral Medium 1.0 7.46%
- 43
Cohere Command A 4.29%
- 44
Llama 4 Maverick 3.63%
- 45
Llama 3.3 70B 3.36%
- 46 GPT-4.1 nano 2.47%
- 47 Jamba 1.6 Mini 1.74%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 60.6% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GPT-5.1 | 56.5% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 55.3% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 55.2% | thinking | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | GPT-5.2 | 52.8% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Claude Opus 4.1 | 50.9% | thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | Kimi K2.5 | 49.2% | thinking | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | o3 | 47.7% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | GPT-5 | 46.9% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 44.5% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 44.1% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 44.1% | thinking | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | Grok 4.1 Fast | 44% | reasoning | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | Claude Opus 4 | 43.6% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 43.2% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | 43% | thinking | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | GLM-4.7 | 41.9% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | Grok 4 | 40.3% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 39.3% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | Grok 4 Fast | 37.1% | reasoning | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | o4-mini | 35.9% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | Grok-3 mini | 31.7% | reasoning | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | | 31.2% | non-thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 24 | | 29.7% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 29.4% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | gpt-oss-120b | 28.3% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | GLM-4.6 | 27.1% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | Kimi K2 Thinking | 26% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | GPT-4.1 | 24.6% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | Grok 3 | 24.1% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | | 23.5% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 32 | GPT-4.1 mini | 20.8% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 33 | o1 | 20.8% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 34 | GPT-4o Aug 2024 | 19.3% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 35 | | 18.2% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 36 | Claude 3.5 Haiku | 14.3% | Oct 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 37 | | 13.2% | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 38 | o3-mini | 12.7% | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 39 | GPT-4o mini | 10.8% | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 40 | | 10% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 41 | | 8.85% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 42 | | 7.46% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 43 | | 4.29% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 44 | | 3.63% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 45 | | 3.36% | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 46 | GPT-4.1 nano | 2.47% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 47 | Jamba 1.6 Mini | 1.74% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
The best score, 60.6%, costs $1.46 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. GPT-5.1 comes within 4.1 points of the best for $0.44 a task, 3 times cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.6 | thinking | 60.6% | $1.46 | ||
| GPT-5.1 | 56.5% | $0.44 | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | thinking | 55.3% | $0.98 | ||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | thinking | 55.2% | $1.17 | ||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | non-thinking | 54.5% | $1.19 | ||
| GPT-5.2 | 52.8% | $0.94 | |||
| Claude Opus 4.1 | thinking | 50.9% | $3.80 | ||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | non-thinking | 49.3% | $1.15 | ||
| Kimi K2.5 | thinking | 49.2% | $0.14 | ||
| o3 | 47.7% | $0.13 | |||
| GPT-5 | 46.9% | $0.69 | |||
| Claude Opus 4.1 | non-thinking | 46.1% | $3.73 | ||
| Claude Sonnet 4 | thinking | 44.5% | $0.20 | ||
| | 44.1% | $0.53 | |||
| Claude 3.7 Sonnet | thinking | 44.1% | $0.20 | ||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | reasoning | 44% | $0.06 | ||
| Claude Opus 4 | thinking | 43.6% | $3.71 | ||
| Claude Sonnet 4 | non-thinking | 43.5% | $0.86 | ||
| | 43.2% | $1.28 | |||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | thinking | 43% | $0.28 | ||
| Claude 3.7 Sonnet | non-thinking | 42.9% | $0.20 | ||
| Claude Opus 4 | non-thinking | 42.4% | $3.84 | ||
| GLM-4.7 | 41.9% | $0.20 | |||
| Grok 4 | 40.3% | $1.11 | |||
| | 39.3% | $0.36 | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | non-reasoning | 37.9% | $0.09 | ||
| Grok 4 Fast | reasoning | 37.1% | $0.20 | ||
| o4-mini | 35.9% | $0.07 | |||
| | 32.2% | $0.33 | |||
| Grok-3 mini | reasoning | 31.7% | $0.02 | ||
| | non-thinking | 31.2% | $0.06 | ||
| | thinking | 30.6% | $0.08 | ||
| | 29.7% | $0.11 | |||
| | 29.4% | $0.09 | |||
| gpt-oss-120b | 28.3% | $0.07 | |||
| GLM-4.6 | 27.1% | $0.24 | |||
| Kimi K2 Thinking | 26% | $0.10 | |||
| Grok 4 Fast | non-reasoning | 24.8% | $0.11 | ||
| GPT-4.1 | 24.6% | $0.13 | |||
| Grok 3 | 24.1% | $0.20 | |||
| | 23.5% | $0.11 | |||
| GPT-4.1 mini | 20.8% | $0.03 | |||
| o1 | 20.8% | $0.98 | |||
| GPT-4o Aug 2024 | 19.3% | $0.16 | |||
| | 18.2% | $0.48 | |||
| | 17.7% | $0.38 | |||
| Grok-3 mini | reasoning | 17.1% | $0.02 | ||
| Claude 3.5 Haiku | 14.3% | $0.05 | |||
| | 13.2% | $0.01 | |||
| o3-mini | 12.7% | $0.07 | |||
| GPT-4o mini | 10.8% | $0.01 | |||
| | 10% | ||||
| | 8.85% | $0.03 | |||
| | 7.46% | $0.13 | |||
| | 4.29% | $0.16 | |||
| | 3.63% | $0.01 | |||
| | 3.36% | $0.05 | |||
| GPT-4.1 nano | 2.47% | $0.01 | |||
| Jamba 1.6 Mini | 1.74% | $0.01 |
6 models have held number one since its release in Apr 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
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.
Versions
We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.
More 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%