Benchmark Almanac

Vals Finance Agent v1

Claude Opus 4.6 60.6% leads since Feb 2026 Not in model cards

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.

Abstract of Finance Agent Benchmark: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-world Financial Research Tasks (arXiv:2508.00828, CC0)
Made by Vals AI (with Stanford researchers and a global systemically important bank) Released Apr 2025 Finance Public tasks plus a private test set Last model added Feb 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
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.
47
Models scored on its own leaderboard

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:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 60.6%
  2. 2 GPT-5.1 56.5%
  3. 3 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 55.3%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 55.2%
  5. 5 GPT-5.2 52.8%
  6. 6 Claude Opus 4.1 thinking 50.9%
  7. 7 Kimi K2.5 thinking 49.2%
  8. 8 o3 47.7%
  9. 9 GPT-5 46.9%
  10. 10 Claude Sonnet 4 thinking 44.5%
  11. 11 Gemini 3 Pro 44.1%
  12. 12 Claude 3.7 Sonnet thinking 44.1%
  13. 13 Grok 4.1 Fast reasoning 44%
  14. 14 Claude Opus 4 thinking 43.6%
  15. 15 Qwen3-Max 43.2%
  16. 16 Claude Haiku 4.5 thinking 43%
  17. 17 GLM-4.7 41.9%
  18. 18 Grok 4 40.3%
  19. 19 Gemini 3 Flash 39.3%
  20. 20 Grok 4 Fast reasoning 37.1%
  21. 21 o4-mini 35.9%
  22. 22 Grok-3 mini reasoning 31.7%
  23. 23 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025, non-thinking 31.2%
  24. 24 MiniMax-M2.1 29.7%
  25. 25 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 29.4%
  26. 26 gpt-oss-120b 28.3%
  27. 27 GLM-4.6 27.1%
  28. 28 Kimi K2 Thinking 26%
  29. 29 GPT-4.1 24.6%
  30. 30 Grok 3 24.1%
  31. 31 Mistral Large 3 23.5%
  32. 32 GPT-4.1 mini 20.8%
  33. 33 o1 20.8%
  34. 34 GPT-4o Aug 2024 19.3%
  35. 35 Magistral Medium 1.2 18.2%
  36. 36 Claude 3.5 Haiku 14.3%
  37. 37 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 13.2%
  38. 38 o3-mini 12.7%
  39. 39 GPT-4o mini 10.8%
  40. 40 Mistral Small 3.1 10%
  41. 41 Mistral Medium 3.1 8.85%
  42. 42 Magistral Medium 1.0 7.46%
  43. 43 Cohere Command A 4.29%
  44. 44 Llama 4 Maverick 3.63%
  45. 45 Llama 3.3 70B 3.36%
  46. 46 GPT-4.1 nano 2.47%
  47. 47 Jamba 1.6 Mini 1.74%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
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 Gemini 3 Pro 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 Qwen3-Max 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 Gemini 3 Flash 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 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 31.2% non-thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
24 MiniMax-M2.1 29.7% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
25 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 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 Mistral Large 3 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 Magistral Medium 1.2 18.2% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
36 Claude 3.5 Haiku 14.3% Oct 2024 Official leaderboard
37 Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 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 Mistral Small 3.1 10% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
41 Mistral Medium 3.1 8.85% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
42 Magistral Medium 1.0 7.46% Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
43 Cohere Command A 4.29% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
44 Llama 4 Maverick 3.63% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
45 Llama 3.3 70B 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.

Google DeepMind xAI OpenAI Moonshot AI Anthropic Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 4.6, thinking GPT-5.1 Kimi K2.5, thinking Grok 4.1 Fast, reasoning Grok-3 mini, reasoning Gemini 2.0 Flash 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 4.6, thinking Kimi K2.5, thinking
ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput 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
Gemini 3 Pro 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
Qwen3-Max 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
Gemini 3 Flash 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
Qwen3-Max 32.2% $0.33
Grok-3 mini reasoning 31.7% $0.02
Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 non-thinking 31.2% $0.06
Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 thinking 30.6% $0.08
MiniMax-M2.1 29.7% $0.11
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 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
Mistral Large 3 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
Magistral Medium 1.2 18.2% $0.48
Qwen3-Max 17.7% $0.38
Grok-3 mini reasoning 17.1% $0.02
Claude 3.5 Haiku 14.3% $0.05
Gemini 2.0 Flash Feb 2025 13.2% $0.01
o3-mini 12.7% $0.07
GPT-4o mini 10.8% $0.01
Mistral Small 3.1 10%
Mistral Medium 3.1 8.85% $0.03
Magistral Medium 1.0 7.46% $0.13
Cohere Command A 4.29% $0.16
Llama 4 Maverick 3.63% $0.01
Llama 3.3 70B 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.

Anthropic OpenAI
Own leaderboard Replaced by Agent, Feb 2026

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 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 Claude Opus 4.1 o3 o1 GPT-4o GPT-4o mini 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Opus 4.1

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.

Anthropic OpenAI Google DeepMind Meta
Vals Finance Agent v2.1 17 leaders
Vals Finance Agent v1 Replaced by Agent, Feb 2026
Vals Finance Agent Replaced by v2, Jun 2026

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%