The newest model in the AIMultiple Intelligence Index is Claude Opus 5.5.
LLM Benchmarks
One transparent Intelligence Index combining public benchmarks with AIMultiple's own agentic, RAG and enterprise-reasoning evaluations. How the Index Is Built
Leaderboard
The highest-scoring models across all benchmarks.
# | Model | Index | AA-LCR | AIM-A-CODE-LLM Bench | AIM-Agentic-RAG | AIM-FinanceReasoning | AIM-HALC-Bench | AIM-RELC-Bench | AIM-Text-to-SQL | APEX-Agents-AA | ARC-AGI-1 | ARC-AGI-2 | ARC-AGI-3 | ArxivMath | AutomationBench-AA | BioMysteryBench | BrowseComp | Convex Coding Evals | CritPt | Crosby RedlineBench | DeepSWE 1.1 | EnterpriseOps-Gym-AA | Frontier-Bench | FrontierCode | FrontierMath | GDPval | GPQA Diamond | Harvey LAB-AA | HealthBench Professional | HieroglyphBench | Humanity's Last Exam | IFBench | ITBench-AA | LegalBench | LiveCodeBench | MMMU-Pro | ObviousBench | Opus Magnum Bench | ReactBench | RuneBench | SciCode | SimpleBench | Swe-Bench | Tau2-Bench Telecom | Tau3-Banking | Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Terminal-Bench 4.0 | Terminal-Bench Hard | Terminal-Bench-Science |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic | 100 | - | - | 90 | 92 | - | - | 88 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 32 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1846 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 67 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2 | GPT-6 Astra OpenAI | 92 | - | - | 84 | 87 | - | - | 66 | - | - | 95 | 63 | - | 41 | - | 92 | 85 | 32 | - | 74 | - | - | 53 | 98 | 1542 | 96 | - | 70 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 7 | 56 | - | - | - | - | 90 | 58 | - | - |
| 3 | Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic | 91 | 80 | - | 84 | 90 | - | - | 67 | - | 98 | 90 | - | - | 31 | - | - | 81 | 31 | - | 67 | - | - | 51 | 88 | 1735 | 94 | - | 62 | - | 59 | - | - | 89 | - | - | - | - | - | 6 | 63 | - | - | - | 47 | 91 | 56 | - | - |
| 4 | Qwen3.8 Flash Alibaba Cloud | 87 | 77 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1743 | 92 | - | - | - | 38 | 81 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 47 | - | - | - | 45 | 86 | - | - | - |
| 5 | Command A+ Cohere | 87 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 30 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 74 | - | 61 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 81 | - | - | - | 25 | - |
| 6 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi | 87 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 27 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1673 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 61 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 7 | Muse Spark 1.1 Meta | 86 | 81 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 53 | - | - | - | - | 1381 | 90 | - | 59 | - | 46 | - | - | 85 | - | - | 99 | - | 23 | 6 | 58 | - | - | - | 32 | 78 | - | - | - |
| 8 | Claude Fable 5 Anthropic | 85 | 77 | 69 | 82 | 90 | - | - | 66 | 59 | 99 | 89 | - | 79 | 17 | - | 87 | 84 | 29 | - | 70 | - | 34 | 54 | 90 | 1741 | 93 | 14 | 63 | 23 | 56 | 64 | - | 89 | - | 81 | 99 | 22 | 47 | 6 | 61 | 82 | - | 99 | 38 | 85 | 42 | 63 | 21 |
| 9 | Claude Opus 5 Anthropic | 83 | 79 | - | 85 | 90 | - | - | 64 | - | 98 | 90 | 30 | 91 | 50 | 79 | 91 | 82 | 29 | - | 74 | - | 44 | 53 | 73 | 1708 | 94 | - | 60 | - | 55 | - | - | 87 | - | 85 | 100 | - | - | 6 | 56 | - | - | - | 45 | 89 | 52 | - | 30 |
| 10 | GPT-6 Sol OpenAI | 79 | - | - | 82 | - | - | - | 54 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 31 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1487 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 58 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
How the Index Is Built
Each benchmark is read as a placement rather than a raw score. Within one benchmark the best result sits at 100, the worst at 0, and every other model falls somewhere in between. The index is the weighted average of those placements over the benchmarks a model has actually run: a benchmark it was never run on is not counted as a zero, it is simply absent. Benchmarks do not count equally, and the weight each one carries is listed with it. A model needs results on at least two index benchmarks before it is ranked, so a single result places a model on one benchmark's line without giving it a standing of its own. Placements are used instead of raw accuracy because benchmarks differ sharply in difficulty and scale, and scores from different benchmarks cannot share an average. Weights: AIM-FinanceReasoning (10%) + AIM-Text-to-SQL (10%) + AIM-Agentic-RAG (10%) + SciCode (10%) + FrontierMath (10%) + Terminal-Bench 2.1 (10%) + CritPt (10%) + IFBench (10%) + MMMU-Pro (10%) + ARC-AGI-3 (10%).
Benchmarks We Used
Recent Updates
Latest changes to the Intelligence Index, model coverage and AIMultiple benchmark methodology.
Claude Opus 5.5
New model added to the AIMultiple Intelligence Index.
GPT-6 Sol
New model added to the AIMultiple Intelligence Index.
GPT-6 Luna
New model added to the AIMultiple Intelligence Index.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
New model added to the AIMultiple Intelligence Index.
Explore LLM Use Cases, Analyses & Benchmarks
LLM Market Share: Compare Usage & Adoption
We analyzed LLM market share by combining usage-based data and web visit estimates to show how demand for large language models is distributed across AI labs and AI applications. Read the methodology to see how we measured and calculated these results. The United States dominated web visits across all four months, consistently accounting for 85–95%.…
Benchmark of 40+ LLMs in Finance: Claude Opus 5.5 & GPT-6 Astra
We evaluated LLMs on 238 hard questions from the FinanceReasoning benchmark (Tang et al.).6 This subset targets the most challenging financial-reasoning tasks, assessing complex, multi-step quantitative reasoning involving financial concepts and formulas. Our evaluation employed a custom prompt design and scoring criteria of accuracy and token consumption. For a detailed explanation of how these metrics…
Compare Multimodal AI Models on Visual Reasoning
We benchmarked 15 leading multimodal AI models on visual reasoning using 200 visual-based questions. The evaluation consisted of two tracks: 100 chart understanding questions testing data visualization interpretation, and 100 visual logic questions assessing pattern recognition and spatial reasoning. Each question was run 5 times to ensure consistent and reliable results. See our benchmark methodology…
Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) vs LLMs
Evaluate LLMs and LMMs by comparing their benchmark scores and real-world latency by clicking the model’s name in the table below. You can also weigh their input and output pricing to judge overall efficiency and value. *Audio is native on the E2B, E4B and 12B models only. Available in five sizes: E2B, E4B, 12B, 26B…
LLM VRAM Calculator for Self-Hosting
Self-hosting an LLM means running inference on hardware the operator controls rather than via a third-party API, which changes the cost, data control, and privacy profile. Whether a model runs at all depends on memory. The calculator estimates the VRAM or unified memory a model needs to run locally, based on the model, its precision,…
Agentic IT: Can AI Agents Design a Benchmark
We tested 16 models on a benchmark design in text-to-SQL and tool calling. Each model built one benchmark per topic, for a total of 32 submissions. No submission passed every rubric criterion. The agents could build and run tests, but none demonstrated both a blank-answer test and a correct-answer test of their own scorer. Text-to-SQL…
AIM Enterprise: Agentic Enterprise Benchmark
Enterprises use LLMs every day for their regular tasks. To find the most cost-efficient LLMs, we designed AIM Enterprise, an agentic enterprise benchmark, where we used 69 real enterprise tasks across strategy, marketing, HR, sales, and operations. Two judge models scored every file that passed the checks. On 32.7% of the individual scores the two…
The Future of Large Language Models
See the future of large language models by delving into promising approaches, such as self-training, fact-checking, and sparse expertise that could address LLM limitations. Success rate comparison of LLM’s Claude Sonnet 4.6 led the benchmark with an overall score of 0.748, with base and thinking variants tied to three decimal places. Claude Opus 4.8 (0.702),…
Large Language Models in Cybersecurity
We evaluated 7 large language models across 9 cybersecurity domains using SecBench, a large-scale and multi-format benchmark for security tasks. We tested each model on 44,823 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and 3,087 short-answer questions (SAQs), covering data security, identity & access management, network security, vulnerability management, and cloud security. MCQs (Multiple-Choice Questions) benchmarking: SAQs (Short Answer…
LLM Scaling Laws: Analysis from AI Researchers
Large language models predict the next token based on patterns learned from text data. The term LLM scaling laws refers to empirical regularities that link model performance to the amount of compute, training data, and model parameters used during training. To understand how these relationships influence modern model design in practice, we reviewed findings from…