Benchmark Almanac

VITA-Bench

Gemini 3 Flash 32.5% leads since Dec 2025 Fading

Agents handle multi-turn requests in simulated food delivery, in-store, and travel services with 66 tools. A rubric-based judge scores task success.

An updated version in January 2026 fixed data and the evaluator, so older scores differ.

In the authors’ words

As LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed in real-life scenarios, existing benchmarks fail to capture their inherent complexity of handling extensive information, leveraging diverse resources, and managing dynamic user interactions. To address this gap, we introduce VitaBench, a challenging benchmark that evaluates agents on versatile interactive tasks grounded in real-world settings. Drawing from daily applications in food delivery, in-store consumption, and online travel services, VitaBench presents agents with the most complex life-serving simulation environment to date, comprising 66 tools. Through a framework that eliminates domain-specific policies, we enable flexible composition of these scenarios and tools, yielding 100 cross-scenario tasks (main results) and 300 single-scenario tasks. Each task is derived from multiple real user requests and requires agents to reason across temporal and spatial dimensions, utilize complex tool sets, proactively clarify ambiguous instructions, and track shifting user intent throughout multi-turn conversations. Moreover, we propose a rubric-based sliding window evaluator, enabling robust assessment of diverse solution pathways in complex environments and stochastic interactions. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals that even the most advanced models achieve only 30% success rate on cross-scenario tasks, and less than 50% success rate on others. Overall, we believe VitaBench will serve as a valuable resource for advancing the development of AI agents in practical real-world applications. The code, dataset, and leaderboard are available at https://vitabench.github.io/

Abstract of VitaBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents with Versatile Interactive Tasks in Real-world Applications (arXiv:2509.26490, CC0)
Made by Meituan LongCat team Released Sep 2025 Customer service All tasks public Last in a launch post Jun 2026 , dropped for a newer version Last model added Jun 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
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.
18
Models scored on its own leaderboard
12
Launch posts list it, from 4 labs
5
System cards report it, from 3 labs

Gemini 3 Flash leads with 32.5% among models released by Jan 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 Jan 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 Gemini 3 Flash high 32.5%
  2. 2 Gemini 3 Pro high 31.5%
  3. 3 LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 thinking 29.3%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 28.5%
  5. 5 o3 high 26.3%
  6. 6 GPT-5.2 xhigh 24.3%
  7. 7 DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 24%
  8. 8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 23.5%
  9. 9 LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking 22.8%
  10. 10 o4-mini high 19.5%
  11. 11 Seed1.8 high 18.8%
  12. 12 GLM-4.7 thinking 18.3%
  13. 13 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025, thinking 14.5%
  14. 14 Qwen3-Max non-thinking 14.3%
  15. 15 Kimi K2 Thinking thinking 12.8%
  16. 16 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025, non-thinking 12.3%
  17. 17 Kimi K2 Sep 2025, non-thinking 11.5%
  18. 18 Qwen3-32B thinking 5.30%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 3 Flash 32.5% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3 Pro 31.5% high Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
3 LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 29.3% thinking Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.5 28.5% thinking Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
5 o3 26.3% high Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5.2 24.3% xhigh Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-V3.2 24% thinking Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 23.5% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
9 LongCat-Flash-Chat 22.8% non-thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
10 o4-mini 19.5% high Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Seed1.8 18.8% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
12 GLM-4.7 18.3% thinking Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025 14.5% thinking Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen3-Max 14.3% non-thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Kimi K2 Thinking 12.8% thinking Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
16 Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025 12.3% non-thinking Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 11.5% non-thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Qwen3-32B 5.30% thinking Apr 2025 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 12 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

More effort adds a median 24 points

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
Gemini 3 Pro
low
31.5%
Claude Opus 4.5
non-thinking thinking
28.5%
GPT-5.2
none xhigh
24.3%
DeepSeek-V3.2
non-thinking thinking
24%
Claude Sonnet 4.5
non-thinking thinking
23.5%
Seed1.8
non-thinking high
18.8%
GLM-4.7
non-thinking thinking
18.3%
Qwen3-32B
non-thinking
5.30%
ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Gemini 3 Flash high 32.5%
Gemini 3 Pro high 31.5%
Gemini 3 Pro low 30%
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 thinking 29.3%
Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 28.5%
o3 high 26.3%
GPT-5.2 xhigh 24.3%
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 24%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 23.5%
Claude Opus 4.5 non-thinking 23.3%
LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking 22.8%
o4-mini high 19.5%
Seed1.8 high 18.8%
DeepSeek-V3.2 non-thinking 18.5%
GLM-4.7 thinking 18.3%
Claude Sonnet 4.5 non-thinking 17%
GLM-4.7 non-thinking 15.5%
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025 thinking 14.5%
Qwen3-Max non-thinking 14.3%
Seed1.8 non-thinking 13.8%
Kimi K2 Thinking thinking 12.8%
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025 non-thinking 12.3%
Kimi K2 Sep 2025 non-thinking 11.5%
Qwen3-32B thinking 5.30%
Qwen3-32B non-thinking 4.00%
GPT-5.2 none 0.80%

3 models have held number one since its release in Sep 2025

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.

OpenAI Google DeepMind Meituan Qwen ByteDance Seed
Own leaderboard Replaced by VitaBench 2.0, May 2026
Lab claims Replaced by VitaBench 2.0, 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%) Qwen3.5 397B-A17B Qwen3-Max Gemini 3 Flash o3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Qwen3.5 397B-A17B Qwen3-Max

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.

Meituan
Qwen
ByteDance Seed
Kuaishou
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
1 Jun 2026 Qwen3.7-Plus 45.6 Vitabench (claude-4.5-sonnet judge)
25 May 2026 Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B 33.1 VITA-Bench
20 May 2026 Qwen3.7-Max 47.9 Vitabench
15 Apr 2026 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 35.6 VITA-Bench (claude-4-sonnet judge)
2 Apr 2026 Qwen 3.6 Plus 44.3 VITA-Bench
24 Feb 2026 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 33.6 VITA-Bench
16 Feb 2026 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 49.7 VITA-Bench
14 Feb 2026 Seed2.0 Pro 47 VitaBench
23 Jan 2026 Qwen3-Max 40.9 Vita Bench
14 Jan 2026 LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 29.3 VitaBench (Avg@4)
21 Sep 2025 LongCat-Flash-Thinking 29.5 VitaBench
29 Aug 2025 LongCat-Flash-Chat 24.3 VitaBench(avg@4)

5 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
9 Jun 2026 Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B technical report 33.1 VitaBench (Table 4) Capabilities
14 Feb 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 47 VitaBench (Table 11) Capabilities
23 Jan 2026 LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 technical report 29.3 VitaBench (Avg@4), updated verifier (Table 2) Capabilities
23 Sep 2025 LongCat-Flash-Thinking technical report 29.5 VitaBench (Table 2) Capabilities
1 Sep 2025 LongCat-Flash-Chat technical report 24.3 VitaBench (avg@4) (Table 3) 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.

OpenAI Meituan Google DeepMind Qwen ByteDance Seed Anthropic
VitaBench 2.0 8 leaders
VITA-Bench Replaced by VitaBench 2.0, Jun 2026
VitaBench 2.0 1 leader

More in Tool use

All 125 in Tool use
  • AutomationBench In use Agent completes end-to-end business workflows inside a simulated company exposing dozens of REST APIs. Graded on resulting state. Gemini 4 Carbon 53.9%
  • MCP Atlas In use Multi-step workflows over real MCP servers. Scores tool-use competency on realistic tasks. Muse Spark 1.1 88.1%
  • BFCL V4 In use Models call functions and tools, including multi-turn agentic tasks with web search and memory. Checked against expected calls and outcomes. Qwen3.7-Max 75%
  • τ³-bench Banking In use Agents act as banking customer-service reps over many turns with a simulated user, following policy. Pass^1 on the final database state. Qwen 3.8 Max 55.1%
  • Claw-Eval In use 300 human-verified agent tasks (service orchestration, multimodal, multi-turn dialogue) audited via traces and snapshots. Rubric scores with Pass^3 consistency. Claude Sonnet 4.6 81.4%
  • DeepSearchQA In use Questions that need multi-step search and synthesis. Final answers graded against references. Kimi K3 95%