Vals Finance Agent v2.1
Agents answer analyst-grade questions on public company filings, scored with dealbreaker-gated partial credit. A three-model jury grades answers and fails hedged ones.
Revises v2 with question and rubric fixes and a jury of GPT-6.1 Sol, Gemini 3.8 Flash and Claude Sonnet 5.5. Vals says scores are not comparable with v2. Part of Vals Index v2.2 from 2026-10-19.
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 5.5 leads with 67.8%
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.
- 67.8 Claude Opus 5.5
- 67.7
Gemini 4 Argon
- 67.6
Muse Wonder Full
- 67.3 Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 67.2
Gemini 4 Carbon
- 65.8
Gemini 3.8 Flash
- 65.5
Muse Wonder
- 65.4
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 65.4 Claude Haiku 5.5
- 65.0 GLM-5.3
- 64.3 MiMo-V2.6 Pro
- 63.3 MiMo-V2.6 Flash
- 62.9
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
- 61.8 GPT-6.1 Sol
- 61.7
Mistral Large 4 (Le Chonk, open weights)
- 61.6
Tencent Hy4 preview
- 61.5 Kimi K3.1 Pro
- 61.4
Mistral Large 4
- 60.7
Muse Spark Open
- 60.6 GLM-5.3-Flash
- 60.6 Grok 4.7
- 60.4 GPT-6 Astra
- 60.0 Kimi K3
- 58.9
Step 5 Preview
- 58.8
Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
- 58.8
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- 57.1
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
- 56.8 GPT-6 Luna
- 56.0 GPT-6.1 Terra
- 54.7 Mercury 3
- 54.3
MiniMax-M3
- 51.8 Beam 1.0
- 49.9
Inkling
- 47.7
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
- 44.8
Inkling-Small
- 1 Claude Opus 5.5 67.8%
- 2
Gemini 4 Argon 67.7%
- 3
Muse Wonder Full 67.6%
- 4 Claude Sonnet 5.5 67.3%
- 5
Gemini 4 Carbon 67.2%
- 6
Gemini 3.8 Flash 65.8%
- 7
Muse Wonder 65.5%
- 8
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 65.4%
- 9 Claude Haiku 5.5 65.4%
- 10 GLM-5.3 65%
- 11 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 64.3%
- 12 MiMo-V2.6 Flash 63.3%
- 13
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 62.9%
- 14 GPT-6.1 Sol 61.8%
- 15
Mistral Large 4 (Le Chonk, open weights) 61.7%
- 16
Tencent Hy4 preview 61.6%
- 17 Kimi K3.1 Pro 61.5%
- 18
Mistral Large 4 61.4%
- 19
Muse Spark Open 60.7%
- 20 GLM-5.3-Flash 60.6%
- 21 Grok 4.7 60.6%
- 22 GPT-6 Astra 60.4%
- 23 Kimi K3 60%
- 24
Step 5 Preview 58.9%
- 25
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 58.8%
- 26
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 58.8%
- 27
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 57.1%
- 28 GPT-6 Luna 56.8%
- 29 GPT-6.1 Terra 56%
- 30 Mercury 3 54.7%
- 31
MiniMax-M3 54.3%
- 32 Beam 1.0 51.8%
- 33
Inkling 49.9%
- 34
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47.7%
- 35
Inkling-Small 44.8%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 67.8% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | | 67.7% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 67.6% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 67.3% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | | 67.2% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 65.8% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | | 65.5% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 65.4% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | 65.4% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | GLM-5.3 | 65% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | MiMo-V2.6 Pro | 64.3% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | MiMo-V2.6 Flash | 63.3% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 62.9% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | GPT-6.1 Sol | 61.8% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 61.7% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 61.6% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | Kimi K3.1 Pro | 61.5% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | | 61.4% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | | 60.7% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | GLM-5.3-Flash | 60.6% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | Grok 4.7 | 60.6% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | GPT-6 Astra | 60.4% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | Kimi K3 | 60% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 58.9% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 58.8% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | | 58.8% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | | 57.1% | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | GPT-6 Luna | 56.8% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | GPT-6.1 Terra | 56% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | Mercury 3 | 54.7% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | | 54.3% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 32 | Beam 1.0 | 51.8% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 33 | | 49.9% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 34 | | 47.7% | Oct 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 35 | | 44.8% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
The best score, 67.8%, costs $8.91 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. MiMo-V2.6 Flash comes within 4.5 points of the best for $0.07 a task, 127 times cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
Number one over time
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%