Vals Finance Agent
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.
- 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 4.7 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:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 15 more
- 64.4 Claude Opus 4.7
- 63.3 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 60.6
Muse Spark
- 60.4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 60.0 Claude Opus 4.6
- 60.0 GPT-5.5
- 59.7
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 58.8 Claude Opus 4.5
- 58.5 GPT-5.2
- 57.7 GLM-5.1
- 57.1 GPT-5.4
- 57.1 Kimi K2.6
- 55.3 GPT-5.1
- 55.1
Gemini 3 Pro
- 54.6
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 54.5 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 54.5
Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B)
- 53.8 Grok 4.3
- 53.5 Grok 4
- 53.4 GPT-5.4 Mini
- 53.2 GLM-5
- 52.8
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview)
- 52.5 Grok 4.1 Fast
- 52.3 Grok 4.20
- 52.1 GPT-5
- 51.9 GPT-5 mini
- 50.8
Gemma 4 31B IT
- 50.6 Kimi K2.5
- 48.4
MiniMax-M2.7
- 47.8 GPT-5.4 Nano
- 47.6
Gemini 3 Flash
- 46.9 Claude Haiku 4.5
- 46.1
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 46.1
Mistral Medium 3.5
- 46.1 Grok 4 Fast
- 46.0 GLM-4.7
- 45.6
Qwen 3.5 Flash (hosted 35B-A3B)
- 44.3
Qwen3-Max
- 41.6
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 38.6
MiniMax-M2.5
- 36.6 Kimi K2 Thinking
- 36.5 GLM-4.6
- 33.4
MiniMax-M2.1
- 21.5 gpt-oss-120b
- 18.1
Mistral Large 3
- 8.06 GPT-4o
- 4.23
Cohere Command A
- 2.35
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 0.37 Jamba 1.7 Large
- 1 Claude Opus 4.7 64.4%
- 2 Claude Sonnet 4.6 63.3%
- 3
Muse Spark 60.6%
- 4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 60.4%
- 5 Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 60%
- 6 GPT-5.5 60%
- 7
Gemini 3.1 Pro 59.7%
- 8 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 58.8%
- 9 GPT-5.2 58.5%
- 10 GLM-5.1 57.7%
- 11 GPT-5.4 xhigh 57.1%
- 12 Kimi K2.6 57.1%
- 13 GPT-5.1 55.3%
- 14
Gemini 3 Pro 55.1%
- 15
Qwen 3.6 Plus 54.6%
- 16 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 54.5%
- 17
Qwen 3.5 Plus (hosted 397B-A17B) thinking 54.5%
- 18 Grok 4.3 53.8%
- 19 Grok 4 53.5%
- 20 GPT-5.4 Mini 53.4%
- 21 GLM-5 thinking 53.2%
- 22
Qwen 3.6 Max (Preview) 52.8%
- 23 Grok 4.1 Fast 52.5%
- 24 Grok 4.20 52.3%
- 25 GPT-5 52.1%
- 26 GPT-5 mini 51.9%
- 27
Gemma 4 31B IT 50.8%
- 28 Kimi K2.5 thinking 50.6%
- 29
MiniMax-M2.7 48.4%
- 30 GPT-5.4 Nano 47.8%
- 31
Gemini 3 Flash 47.6%
- 32 Claude Haiku 4.5 thinking 46.9%
- 33
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 46.1%
- 34
Mistral Medium 3.5 46.1%
- 35 Grok 4 Fast 46.1%
- 36 GLM-4.7 46%
- 37
Qwen 3.5 Flash (hosted 35B-A3B) 45.6%
- 38
Qwen3-Max 44.3%
- 39
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 41.6%
- 40
MiniMax-M2.5 38.6%
- 41 Kimi K2 Thinking 36.6%
- 42 GLM-4.6 36.5%
- 43
MiniMax-M2.1 33.4%
- 44 gpt-oss-120b 21.5%
- 45
Mistral Large 3 18.1%
- 46 GPT-4o Aug 2024 8.06%
- 47
Cohere Command A 4.23%
- 48
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 2.35%
- 49 Jamba 1.7 Large 0.37%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 64.4% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 63.3% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | | 60.6% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 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 | | 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 | | 55.1% | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 54.6% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 54.5% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | | 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 | | 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 | | 50.8% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | Kimi K2.5 | 50.6% | thinking | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 29 | | 48.4% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | GPT-5.4 Nano | 47.8% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | | 47.6% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 32 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | 46.9% | thinking | Oct 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 33 | | 46.1% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 34 | | 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 | | 45.6% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 38 | | 44.3% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 39 | | 41.6% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 40 | | 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 | | 33.4% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 44 | gpt-oss-120b | 21.5% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 45 | | 18.1% | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 46 | GPT-4o Aug 2024 | 8.06% | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 47 | | 4.23% | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 48 | | 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.
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.7 | 64.4% | $0.80 | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 63.3% | $1.44 | |||
| | 60.6% | ||||
| | 60.4% | $0.59 | |||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | thinking | 60% | $1.11 | ||
| GPT-5.5 | 60% | $1.33 | |||
| | 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 | |||
| | 55.1% | $0.56 | |||
| | 54.6% | $0.15 | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | thinking | 54.5% | $1.10 | ||
| | 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 | ||
| | 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 | |||
| | 50.8% | ||||
| Kimi K2.5 | thinking | 50.6% | $0.18 | ||
| | 48.4% | $0.16 | |||
| GPT-5.4 Nano | 47.8% | $0.01 | |||
| | 47.6% | $0.37 | |||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | thinking | 46.9% | $0.38 | ||
| | 46.1% | $0.07 | |||
| | 46.1% | $1.15 | |||
| Grok 4 Fast | 46.1% | $0.05 | |||
| GLM-4.7 | 46% | $0.24 | |||
| | 45.6% | $0.05 | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | non-reasoning | 44.4% | $0.09 | ||
| | 44.3% | $0.80 | |||
| | 41.6% | $0.34 | |||
| | 38.6% | $0.16 | |||
| Kimi K2 Thinking | 36.6% | $0.25 | |||
| GLM-4.6 | 36.5% | $0.19 | |||
| | 33.4% | $0.11 | |||
| gpt-oss-120b | 21.5% | $0.06 | |||
| | 18.1% | $0.09 | |||
| GPT-4o Aug 2024 | 8.06% | $0.16 | |||
| | 4.23% | $2.34 | |||
| | thinking | 2.35% | $0.21 | ||
| Jamba 1.7 Large | 0.37% | $5.04 | |||
| | 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.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 Jun 2026 | 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Jun 2026 | | 60.7 | Finance Agent v1.1 (Table 1) | Capabilities |
| 9 Jun 2026 | | 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.
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%