Benchmark Almanac

Vals Finance Agent

Claude Opus 4.7 64.4% leads since Apr 2026 Fading

Agents answer 537 financial analyst questions on public company SEC filings with search and filing tools. A three-vote GPT-5.2 judge grades each final answer.

Vals refreshed v1 in early 2026. AfterQuery checked the data, the judge moved to GPT-5.2 with a mode of three votes, and every model was rerun. Board frozen on 2026-06-04.

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 Feb 2026 Finance Public tasks plus a private test set Last in a launch post Jun 2026 , dropped for a newer version Last model added Jun 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.
49
Models scored on its own leaderboard
6
Launch posts list it, from 3 labs
6
System cards report it, from 3 labs

Claude Opus 4.7 leads with 64.4% among models released by Apr 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 Apr 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 4.7 64.4%
  2. 2 Claude Sonnet 4.6 63.3%
  3. 3 Muse Spark 60.6%
  4. 4 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 60.4%
  5. 5 Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 60%
  6. 6 GPT-5.5 60%
  7. 7 Gemini 3.1 Pro 59.7%
  8. 8 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 58.8%
  9. 9 GPT-5.2 58.5%
  10. 10 GLM-5.1 57.7%
  11. 11 GPT-5.4 xhigh 57.1%
  12. 12 Kimi K2.6 57.1%
  13. 13 GPT-5.1 55.3%
  14. 14 Gemini 3 Pro 55.1%
  15. 15 Qwen 3.6 Plus 54.6%
  16. 16 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 54.5%
  17. 17 Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B) thinking 54.5%
  18. 18 Grok 4.3 53.8%
  19. 19 Grok 4 53.5%
  20. 20 GPT-5.4 Mini 53.4%
  21. 21 GLM-5 thinking 53.2%
  22. 22 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) 52.8%
  23. 23 Grok 4.1 Fast 52.5%
  24. 24 Grok 4.20 52.3%
  25. 25 GPT-5 52.1%
  26. 26 GPT-5 mini 51.9%
  27. 27 Gemma 4 31B IT 50.8%
  28. 28 Kimi K2.5 thinking 50.6%
  29. 29 MiniMax-M2.7 48.4%
  30. 30 GPT-5.4 Nano 47.8%
  31. 31 Gemini 3 Flash 47.6%
  32. 32 Claude Haiku 4.5 thinking 46.9%
  33. 33 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 46.1%
  34. 34 Mistral Medium 3.5 46.1%
  35. 35 Grok 4 Fast 46.1%
  36. 36 GLM-4.7 46%
  37. 37 Qwen 3.5 Flash (hosted 35B-A3B) 45.6%
  38. 38 Qwen3-Max 44.3%
  39. 39 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 41.6%
  40. 40 MiniMax-M2.5 38.6%
  41. 41 Kimi K2 Thinking 36.6%
  42. 42 GLM-4.6 36.5%
  43. 43 MiniMax-M2.1 33.4%
  44. 44 gpt-oss-120b 21.5%
  45. 45 Mistral Large 3 18.1%
  46. 46 GPT-4o Aug 2024 8.06%
  47. 47 Cohere Command A 4.23%
  48. 48 DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 2.35%
  49. 49 Jamba 1.7 Large 0.37%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.7 64.4% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Sonnet 4.6 63.3% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Muse Spark 60.6% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
4 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 60.4% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Opus 4.6 60% thinking Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5.5 60% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 3.1 Pro 59.7% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Opus 4.5 58.8% thinking Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-5.2 58.5% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
10 GLM-5.1 57.7% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 GPT-5.4 57.1% xhigh Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Kimi K2.6 57.1% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
13 GPT-5.1 55.3% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Gemini 3 Pro 55.1% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen 3.6 Plus 54.6% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Claude Sonnet 4.5 54.5% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B) 54.5% thinking Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
18 Grok 4.3 53.8% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
19 Grok 4 53.5% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
20 GPT-5.4 Mini 53.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
21 GLM-5 53.2% thinking Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
22 Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) 52.8% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
23 Grok 4.1 Fast 52.5% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
24 Grok 4.20 52.3% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
25 GPT-5 52.1% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
26 GPT-5 mini 51.9% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
27 Gemma 4 31B IT 50.8% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
28 Kimi K2.5 50.6% thinking Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
29 MiniMax-M2.7 48.4% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
30 GPT-5.4 Nano 47.8% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
31 Gemini 3 Flash 47.6% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
32 Claude Haiku 4.5 46.9% thinking Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
33 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 46.1% Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
34 Mistral Medium 3.5 46.1% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
35 Grok 4 Fast 46.1% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
36 GLM-4.7 46% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
37 Qwen 3.5 Flash (hosted 35B-A3B) 45.6% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
38 Qwen3-Max 44.3% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
39 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 41.6% Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
40 MiniMax-M2.5 38.6% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
41 Kimi K2 Thinking 36.6% Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
42 GLM-4.6 36.5% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
43 MiniMax-M2.1 33.4% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
44 gpt-oss-120b 21.5% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
45 Mistral Large 3 18.1% Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
46 GPT-4o Aug 2024 8.06% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
47 Cohere Command A 4.23% Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
48 DeepSeek-V3.2 2.35% thinking Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
49 Jamba 1.7 Large 0.37% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 8 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

The best score, 64.4%, costs $0.80 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

xAI OpenAI Qwen Z.ai Anthropic DeepSeek 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 4.7 DeepSeek-V4-Pro GLM-5.1 Qwen 3.6 Plus Grok 4.1 Fast GPT-5.4 Nano 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 4.7 GLM-5.1
ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Claude Opus 4.7 64.4% $0.80
Claude Sonnet 4.6 63.3% $1.44
Muse Spark 60.6%
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 60.4% $0.59
Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 60% $1.11
GPT-5.5 60% $1.33
Gemini 3.1 Pro 59.7% $0.87
Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 58.8% $1.50
GPT-5.2 58.5% $0.98
GLM-5.1 57.7% $0.29
GPT-5.4 xhigh 57.1% $1.41
Kimi K2.6 57.1% $0.49
GPT-5.1 55.3% $0.47
Gemini 3 Pro 55.1% $0.56
Qwen 3.6 Plus 54.6% $0.15
Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 54.5% $1.10
Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B) thinking 54.5% $0.24
Grok 4.3 53.8% $0.44
Grok 4 53.5% $1.07
GPT-5.4 Mini 53.4% $0.49
GLM-5 thinking 53.2% $0.50
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) 52.8% $0.59
Grok 4.1 Fast 52.5% $0.06
Grok 4.20 52.3% $0.36
GPT-5 52.1% $0.59
GPT-5 mini 51.9% $0.14
Gemma 4 31B IT 50.8%
Kimi K2.5 thinking 50.6% $0.18
MiniMax-M2.7 48.4% $0.16
GPT-5.4 Nano 47.8% $0.01
Gemini 3 Flash 47.6% $0.37
Claude Haiku 4.5 thinking 46.9% $0.38
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 46.1% $0.07
Mistral Medium 3.5 46.1% $1.15
Grok 4 Fast 46.1% $0.05
GLM-4.7 46% $0.24
Qwen 3.5 Flash (hosted 35B-A3B) 45.6% $0.05
Grok 4.1 Fast non-reasoning 44.4% $0.09
Qwen3-Max 44.3% $0.80
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 41.6% $0.34
MiniMax-M2.5 38.6% $0.16
Kimi K2 Thinking 36.6% $0.25
GLM-4.6 36.5% $0.19
MiniMax-M2.1 33.4% $0.11
gpt-oss-120b 21.5% $0.06
Mistral Large 3 18.1% $0.09
GPT-4o Aug 2024 8.06% $0.16
Cohere Command A 4.23% $2.34
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 2.35% $0.21
Jamba 1.7 Large 0.37% $5.04
DeepSeek-V3.2 non-thinking 0% $0.04

4 models have held number one since its release in Feb 2026

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Replaced by v2, May 2026
Lab claims Replaced by v2, Jun 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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.7 Claude Opus 4.5 Grok 4 Gemini 2.5 Pro GPT-4o 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.7 GPT-5.1

Labs headline it less often now, last in Jun 2026

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

Anthropic
OpenAI
NVIDIA
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
4 Jun 2026 Nemotron 3 Ultra 60.1 Vals.ai Financial Agent 1.1 without web search (with web search 53.7)
16 Apr 2026 Claude Opus 4.7 64.4 Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v1.1
5 Mar 2026 GPT-5.4 Pro 61.5 FinanceAgent v1.1
17 Feb 2026 Claude Sonnet 4.6 63.3 Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v1.1
5 Feb 2026 Claude Opus 4.6 60.7 Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent
29 Sep 2025 Claude Sonnet 4.5 55.3 Financial analysis Finance Agent

6 system cards report it, from 3 labs

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
23 Jun 2026 Seed2.1 Pro model card 60.7 Finance Agent v1.1 (Table 1) Capabilities
9 Jun 2026 Nemotron 3 Ultra technical report 60.1 Vals.ai Financial Agent 1.1 without web search, 53.7 with web search (Table 10) Capabilities
16 Apr 2026 Claude Opus 4.7 system card 64.4 Finance Agent (Vals AI), adaptive thinking at high effort, run by Vals AI (Table 8.1.A, 8.10.2) Capabilities
17 Feb 2026 Claude Sonnet 4.6 system card 63.3 Finance Agent (Vals AI), Max Thinking; 61.40 at High Thinking (Table 2.12.2.A) Capabilities
5 Feb 2026 Claude Opus 4.6 system card 60.7 Finance Agent (Vals AI), evaluated by Vals AI, adaptive thinking, max effort (2.14.3) Capabilities
24 Nov 2025 Claude Opus 4.5 system card 55.2 FinanceAgent (Vals AI), external Vals AI analysis, 64k thinking, 200k context, avg of 8 trials (2.13; internal testing 61.07% same settings, 61.03% with 1M context) Capabilities

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%