VITA-Bench
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/
- 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.
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:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 32.5
Gemini 3 Flash
- 31.5
Gemini 3 Pro
- 29.3
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
- 28.5 Claude Opus 4.5
- 26.3 o3
- 24.3 GPT-5.2
- 24.0
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 23.5 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 22.8
LongCat-Flash-Chat
- 19.5 o4-mini
- 18.8
Seed1.8
- 18.3 GLM-4.7
- 14.5
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking
- 14.3
Qwen3-Max
- 12.8 Kimi K2 Thinking
- 12.3
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct
- 11.5 Kimi K2
- 5.30
Qwen3-32B
- 1
Gemini 3 Flash high 32.5%
- 2
Gemini 3 Pro high 31.5%
- 3
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 thinking 29.3%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.5 thinking 28.5%
- 5 o3 high 26.3%
- 6 GPT-5.2 xhigh 24.3%
- 7
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 24%
- 8 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 23.5%
- 9
LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking 22.8%
- 10 o4-mini high 19.5%
- 11
Seed1.8 high 18.8%
- 12 GLM-4.7 thinking 18.3%
- 13
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025, thinking 14.5%
- 14
Qwen3-Max non-thinking 14.3%
- 15 Kimi K2 Thinking thinking 12.8%
- 16
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025, non-thinking 12.3%
- 17 Kimi K2 Sep 2025, non-thinking 11.5%
- 18
Qwen3-32B thinking 5.30%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 32.5% | high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 31.5% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 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 | | 24% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 23.5% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | | 22.8% | non-thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | o4-mini | 19.5% | high | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 18.8% | high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | GLM-4.7 | 18.3% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 14.5% | thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 14.3% | non-thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | Kimi K2 Thinking | 12.8% | thinking | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | | 12.3% | non-thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | 11.5% | non-thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | | 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.
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | high | 32.5% | |||
| | high | 31.5% | |||
| | low | 30% | |||
| | thinking | 29.3% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | thinking | 28.5% | |||
| o3 | high | 26.3% | |||
| GPT-5.2 | xhigh | 24.3% | |||
| | thinking | 24% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | thinking | 23.5% | |||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | non-thinking | 23.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | 22.8% | |||
| o4-mini | high | 19.5% | |||
| | high | 18.8% | |||
| | non-thinking | 18.5% | |||
| GLM-4.7 | thinking | 18.3% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | non-thinking | 17% | |||
| GLM-4.7 | non-thinking | 15.5% | |||
| | thinking | 14.5% | |||
| | non-thinking | 14.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | 13.8% | |||
| Kimi K2 Thinking | thinking | 12.8% | |||
| | non-thinking | 12.3% | |||
| Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | non-thinking | 11.5% | |||
| | thinking | 5.30% | |||
| | 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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Jun 2026 | 45.6 | Vitabench (claude-4.5-sonnet judge) | |
| 25 May 2026 | 33.1 | VITA-Bench | |
| 20 May 2026 | 47.9 | Vitabench | |
| 15 Apr 2026 | 35.6 | VITA-Bench (claude-4-sonnet judge) | |
| 2 Apr 2026 | 44.3 | VITA-Bench | |
| 24 Feb 2026 | 33.6 | VITA-Bench | |
| 16 Feb 2026 | 49.7 | VITA-Bench | |
| 14 Feb 2026 | 47 | VitaBench | |
| 23 Jan 2026 | 40.9 | Vita Bench | |
| 14 Jan 2026 | 29.3 | VitaBench (Avg@4) | |
| 21 Sep 2025 | 29.5 | VitaBench | |
| 29 Aug 2025 | 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 Jun 2026 | | 33.1 | VitaBench (Table 4) | Capabilities |
| 14 Feb 2026 | | 47 | VitaBench (Table 11) | Capabilities |
| 23 Jan 2026 | | 29.3 | VitaBench (Avg@4), updated verifier (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| 23 Sep 2025 | | 29.5 | VitaBench (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| 1 Sep 2025 | | 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.
More 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%