VitaBench 2.0
Agents serve one simulated user across a sequence of life-service subtasks over days or months. They must infer, use and update the user's preferences, judged by rubrics.
Reuses the three VitaBench domains and adds a memory interface with full-context, agentic and RAG memory settings. Top models reach about 50 percent Avg@4 with full context.
In the authors’ words
Large language models (LLMs) have evolved into interactive agents that collaborate with users in real-world tasks. Effective collaboration in such settings increasingly depends on understanding the user beyond what is explicitly stated, as user intent is often reflected in fragmented daily interactions and requires both personalized modeling and proactive interaction. However, existing agent benchmarks primarily evaluate reasoning and tool use, largely overlooking the challenges of inferring and leveraging user preferences in realistic scenarios. To address this gap, we introduce VitaBench 2.0, a benchmark for evaluating personalized and proactive agent behavior in long-term user interactions. In VitaBench 2.0, tasks are organized as temporally ordered sequences for individual users, where preferences are embedded in fragmented and heterogeneous interactions. Successful completion of tasks requires the agent to continuously extract, utilize, and update user preferences from these interactions. We further evaluate proactiveness through tasks that require agents to recognize missing information and actively acquire it from users or environments before making decisions. To support systematic analysis, we provide an extensible memory interface that enables controlled comparison across different memory architectures. We benchmark a diverse set of frontier proprietary and open-source LLMs. Results show that real-world personalization remains highly challenging even for state-of-the-art models, revealing a substantial gap between current capabilities and practical requirements. Extensive analysis further reveals the failure modes and capability bottlenecks of current agents in real-world personalized decision-making, providing insights for future model improvements.
- 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.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 50.3% 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 16 more
- 50.3 Claude Opus 4.6
- 47.4
Seed2.0 Pro
- 47.2
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 44.1 GPT-5
- 42.0 GLM-5.1
- 41.7 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 40.3 o3
- 39.6
DeepSeek-R1
- 37.8 Kimi K2.6
- 37.3
Doubao-Seed-1.6
- 36.4 GLM-4.5
- 35.9 GLM-4.6
- 34.5
MiniMax-M2.7
- 33.1
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 29.8
LongCat-Flash-Chat
- 28.4
Qwen3-Max
- 28.2
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 21.0 o4-mini
- 14.0 GPT-3.5 Turbo
- 6.70 GPT-4o mini
- 1 Claude Opus 4.6 thinking 50.3%
- 2
Seed2.0 Pro thinking 47.4%
- 3
DeepSeek-V4-Pro thinking 47.2%
- 4 GPT-5 thinking 44.1%
- 5 GLM-5.1 non-thinking 42%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 thinking 41.7%
- 7 o3 thinking 40.3%
- 8
DeepSeek-R1 May 2025, thinking 39.6%
- 9 Kimi K2.6 non-thinking 37.8%
- 10
Doubao-Seed-1.6 thinking 37.3%
- 11 GLM-4.5 thinking 36.4%
- 12 GLM-4.6 thinking 35.9%
- 13
MiniMax-M2.7 thinking 34.5%
- 14
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025, thinking 33.1%
- 15
LongCat-Flash-Chat non-thinking 29.8%
- 16
Qwen3-Max thinking 28.4%
- 17
Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025, thinking 28.2%
- 18 o4-mini thinking 21%
- 19 GPT-3.5 Turbo Jan 2024, non-thinking 14%
- 20 GPT-4o mini non-thinking 6.70%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 50.3% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 47.4% | thinking | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 47.2% | thinking | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | GPT-5 | 44.1% | thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | GLM-5.1 | 42% | non-thinking | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 41.7% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | o3 | 40.3% | thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | | 39.6% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | Kimi K2.6 | 37.8% | non-thinking | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 37.3% | thinking | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | GLM-4.5 | 36.4% | thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | GLM-4.6 | 35.9% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 34.5% | thinking | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 33.1% | thinking | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 29.8% | non-thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | | 28.4% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | | 28.2% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | o4-mini | 21% | thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | GPT-3.5 Turbo Jan 2024 | 14% | non-thinking | Jan 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | GPT-4o mini | 6.70% | non-thinking | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.
Scores at each effort level
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.6 | thinking | 50.3% | |||
| | thinking | 47.4% | |||
| | thinking | 47.2% | |||
| | non-thinking | 45.6% | |||
| GPT-5 | thinking | 44.1% | |||
| | non-thinking | 42.8% | |||
| GLM-5.1 | non-thinking | 42% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | thinking | 41.7% | |||
| o3 | thinking | 40.3% | |||
| | thinking | 39.6% | |||
| GLM-5.1 | thinking | 39.4% | |||
| Kimi K2.6 | non-thinking | 37.8% | |||
| | thinking | 37.3% | |||
| GLM-4.5 | thinking | 36.4% | |||
| GLM-4.6 | thinking | 35.9% | |||
| | thinking | 34.5% | |||
| GLM-4.6 | non-thinking | 34.2% | |||
| | thinking | 33.1% | |||
| | non-thinking | 32.6% | |||
| GLM-4.5 | non-thinking | 30.7% | |||
| | non-thinking | 29.8% | |||
| Kimi K2.6 | thinking | 29.3% | |||
| | thinking | 28.4% | |||
| | thinking | 28.2% | |||
| o4-mini | thinking | 21% | |||
| GPT-3.5 Turbo Jan 2024 | non-thinking | 14% | |||
| GPT-4o mini | non-thinking | 6.70% |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 Oct 2026 | 30.8 | VitaBench2.0 |
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%