Benchmark Almanac

Vals Finance Agent v2.1

Claude Opus 5.5 67.8% leads since Oct 2026 Not in model cards

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.

Abstract of Finance Agent Benchmark: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-world Financial Research Tasks (arXiv:2508.00828, CC0)
Made by Vals AI Released Oct 2026 Finance Public tasks plus a private test set Last model added Oct 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.
35
Models scored on its own leaderboard

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.

  1. 1 Claude Opus 5.5 67.8%
  2. 2 Gemini 4 Argon 67.7%
  3. 3 Muse Wonder Full 67.6%
  4. 4 Claude Sonnet 5.5 67.3%
  5. 5 Gemini 4 Carbon 67.2%
  6. 6 Gemini 3.8 Flash 65.8%
  7. 7 Muse Wonder 65.5%
  8. 8 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 65.4%
  9. 9 Claude Haiku 5.5 65.4%
  10. 10 GLM-5.3 65%
  11. 11 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 64.3%
  12. 12 MiMo-V2.6 Flash 63.3%
  13. 13 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 62.9%
  14. 14 GPT-6.1 Sol 61.8%
  15. 15 Mistral Large 4 (Le Chonk, open weights) 61.7%
  16. 16 Tencent Hy4 preview 61.6%
  17. 17 Kimi K3.1 Pro 61.5%
  18. 18 Mistral Large 4 61.4%
  19. 19 Muse Spark Open 60.7%
  20. 20 GLM-5.3-Flash 60.6%
  21. 21 Grok 4.7 60.6%
  22. 22 GPT-6 Astra 60.4%
  23. 23 Kimi K3 60%
  24. 24 Step 5 Preview 58.9%
  25. 25 Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 58.8%
  26. 26 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 58.8%
  27. 27 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 57.1%
  28. 28 GPT-6 Luna 56.8%
  29. 29 GPT-6.1 Terra 56%
  30. 30 Mercury 3 54.7%
  31. 31 MiniMax-M3 54.3%
  32. 32 Beam 1.0 51.8%
  33. 33 Inkling 49.9%
  34. 34 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47.7%
  35. 35 Inkling-Small 44.8%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 5.5 67.8% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 4 Argon 67.7% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Muse Wonder Full 67.6% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Sonnet 5.5 67.3% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Gemini 4 Carbon 67.2% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Gemini 3.8 Flash 65.8% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Muse Wonder 65.5% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
8 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 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 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 62.9% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
14 GPT-6.1 Sol 61.8% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Mistral Large 4 (Le Chonk, open weights) 61.7% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Tencent Hy4 preview 61.6% Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Kimi K3.1 Pro 61.5% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
18 Mistral Large 4 61.4% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
19 Muse Spark Open 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 Step 5 Preview 58.9% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
25 Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 58.8% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
26 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 58.8% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
27 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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 MiniMax-M3 54.3% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
32 Beam 1.0 51.8% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
33 Inkling 49.9% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
34 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47.7% Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
35 Inkling-Small 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.

Google DeepMind DeepSeek Xiaomi Corp Anthropic Meta Inception Labs 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 5.5 Gemini 4 Argon Gemini 3.8 Flash DeepSeek V4.1 Flash MiMo-V2.6 Flash Mercury 3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 5.5 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 5.5 67.8% $8.91
Gemini 4 Argon 67.7% $4.32
Muse Wonder Full 67.6% $2.68
Claude Sonnet 5.5 67.3% $6.95
Gemini 4 Carbon 67.2% $7.29
Gemini 3.8 Flash 65.8% $1.99
Muse Wonder 65.5% $2.62
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 65.4% $0.37
Claude Haiku 5.5 65.4% $1.64
GLM-5.3 65% $1.03
MiMo-V2.6 Pro 64.3% $0.18
MiMo-V2.6 Flash 63.3% $0.07
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 62.9% $0.47
GPT-6.1 Sol 61.8% $1.63
Mistral Large 4 (Le Chonk, open weights) 61.7% $0.35
Tencent Hy4 preview 61.6% $0.67
Kimi K3.1 Pro 61.5% $2.29
Mistral Large 4 61.4% $0.52
Muse Spark Open 60.7% $2.76
GLM-5.3-Flash 60.6% $0.07
Grok 4.7 60.6% $2.24
GPT-6 Astra 60.4% $7.82
Kimi K3 60% $1.88
Step 5 Preview 58.9% $0.58
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 58.8% $2.99
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 58.8% $0.16
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 57.1% $0.82
GPT-6 Luna 56.8% $0.12
GPT-6.1 Terra 56% $1.92
Mercury 3 54.7% $0.06
MiniMax-M3 54.3% $0.30
Beam 1.0 51.8%
Inkling 49.9% $0.89
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 47.7% $0.11
Inkling-Small 44.8% $0.21

Number one over time

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

Anthropic
Own leaderboard 1 leader

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% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5.5 Kimi K3 MiniMax-M3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5.5 Kimi K3

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%