UnifyBench

Weighted consensus · Public benchmarks

LLM leaderboard

Compare AI models across public benchmarks. Source-balanced consensus for overall performance, coding, reasoning and agentic work.

Looking for which LLM is best? UnifyBench is a first stop: source-balanced consensus across many published benchmarks (not one board). Shortlist here, then validate on Artificial Analysis, check Arena for preference, and finish with task-specific evals.

See the full ranking

Overall leaders

Comparison score · 0–100

Consensus across available benchmarks. Models cover different task areas; use a task ranking for a focused comparison.

Experimental scores for the selected profile and sources. Small gaps may not be meaningful. How scoring works · Effort evidence collected

This month: three boards to compare

Which LLM is best in October 2026?

The dated checks below show different measures of performance: GPT-6 Astra · XHigh leads UnifyBench; Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) is Artificial Analysis's last known leader; Gemini 4 Argon · High is Arena's last known leader. Shortlist with UnifyBench, check Artificial Analysis for independent scores and cost per task, check Arena for preferences, then test your own tasks.

  • UnifyBenchGPT-6 Astra · XHigh95.9Overall · benchmark consensus · 0–100
  • Artificial AnalysisClaude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)58Intelligence Index · independent suiteLast known leader
  • ArenaGemini 4 Argon · High1525 ± 9Text Overall Elo · human preferenceLast known leaderPreliminary

The Intelligence Index, Arena Elo, and UnifyBench score use different scales and cannot be compared directly. UnifyBench balances many published benchmarks rather than blending a few board ranks. Why leaderboards disagree.

Source dates and refresh details

UnifyBench
Evidence published 20 Oct 2026
Default weights · documented evidence · highest-scoring effort

Artificial Analysis
Checked 7 Oct 2026 · Source update date unavailable
#1 · Stale check · Refresh failed 20 Oct 2026; last good check retained

Arena
Checked 7 Oct 2026 · Board updated 2 Oct 2026
#1 · Preliminary · Stale check · Refresh failed 20 Oct 2026; last good check retained

471unique models568model configurations134source pages
Explore all 134 source pages Independent evaluations and lab reports

Each model is counted once across effort levels. Configurations count documented model + effort settings, including unranked.

Original reports and benchmark leaderboards. Distinct source pages with published results in the catalog. Multiple results and page sections count as one source.

One entry per model, using its highest-scoring eligible effort setting. How effort ranking works.

Customize ranking Sources, profiles and evidence details
All presets

Evidence only MultimodalLong contextHuman prefAll capabilitiesThese profiles do not yet have enough comparable evidence for a ranking.

Adjust weights

Full ranking

231 entries
Compare two configurations

Capability ranking of measured model configurations. Scores are experimental; missing results remain unknown.
RankModelScoreEvidence breadth Why this score?
1GPT-6 Astra · XHighOpenAI95.9Multiple independent sources21 families · 6 areas measured
2Claude Opus 5.5 · HighAnthropic92.3Multiple independent sources13 families · 6 areas measured
3Gemini 4 Argon · MediumGoogle90.2Multiple independent sources3 families · 2 areas measured
4Claude Fable 5.1 · MaxAnthropic89.9Multiple independent sources37 families · 6 areas measured
5GPT-6.1 Sol · HighOpenAI85.9Multiple independent sources16 families · 6 areas measured
6Muse Wonder Full · MaxMeta85.0Multiple independent sources16 families · 5 areas measured
7Claude Opus 5 · MediumAnthropic83.2Multiple independent sources14 families · 6 areas measured
8Claude Fable 5 · HighAnthropic79.7Multiple independent sources8 families · 2 areas measured
9GPT-5.6 Sol · XHighOpenAI79.3Multiple independent sources17 families · 6 areas measured
10Claude Sonnet 5.5 · MaxAnthropic77.5Multiple independent sources26 families · 5 areas measured
11GPT-5.5 Pro · XHighOpenAI76.5Multiple independent sources3 families · Hard reasoning only
12Muse Spark 1.3 · XHighMeta74.3Multiple independent sources28 families · 6 areas measured
13Muse Wonder · MaxMeta73.2Multiple independent sources23 families · 5 areas measured
14Gemini 3.8 Flash · HighGoogle71.8Multiple independent sources38 families · 6 areas measured
15DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · HighDeepSeek70.2Multiple independent sources3 families · 2 areas measured
16Kimi K3 · MaxMoonshot66.5Multiple independent sources36 families · 6 areas measured

More models on this page

Behind the ranking

294 entries with published results · 231 ranked · 7 provisional estimates.

Explore seven capabilities, the original results, and gaps in the evidence.

Coding rankingReasoning rankingAgentic rankingKnowledge rankingCompare capabilities ↗Published benchmarks ↗Evidence coverage ↗
Cite this ranking

Include the model and effort setting, the selected profile, and the dated data downloads. A shared link uses the latest data; it does not freeze a ranking in time.

UnifyBench ranking
Data updated: 20 Oct 2026
Mode: overall; evidence: documented; configurations: best
https://unifybench.ai/

Catalog data · Effort measurements · Configuration scoring rules · Methodology

Catalog dated 20 Oct 2026. Effort evidence collected 18 Oct 2026. Collection dates are not evaluation dates.

What does the score mean?

The adjusted comparison score estimates performance against the same reference panel from matched published comparisons. Capability pools matched comparisons across families and checks aggregate breadth and independent source coverage. Custom profiles require support in every selected capability. Missing results never count as losses.

Family details show observed win shares against available reference peers. Those descriptive values are supporting evidence, not adjusted capability scores. Provider reports and independent results remain labeled. Matching reported settings do not establish equal inference effort, and score differences do not establish statistical significance.

Read the full methodology →