RankingEffort benchmarks
GPT-5.5 Pro effort benchmarks
Compare measured Low, Medium, High and other settings. Every number keeps its source.
GPT-5.5 Pro
5 measured results · 2 reported effort labels · 4 benchmark/harness combinations. Model evidence and sources →
Capability score evidence
GPT-5.5 Pro · XHigh: 65.5 overall comparison score. Meets the overall evidence requirements.
Which sources carry the weight?
- ARC Prize · 59.7% direct comparison weight · independent
- Artificial Analysis · 20.9% direct comparison weight · independent
- Epoch AI · 19.3% direct comparison weight · independent
These shares describe the comparisons entering the fit, not fractions of the final score.
How sensitive is this score?
Remove one evaluator or family and refit the graph against the same overall panel. Values use the matching dataset audited 2026-09-12. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals; ranking eligibility may also change.
| Removed evidence | Recomputed score | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis | 66.1 | +0.6 |
| ARC Prize | 65.5 | +0.0 |
| Datacurve | 63.2 | -2.3 |
| LiveCodeBench | 65.5 | +0.0 |
| Scale | 66.4 | +0.9 |
| Terminal-Bench | 65.5 | -0.0 |
| Cognition | 66.6 | +1.1 |
| LiveBench | 65.9 | +0.4 |
| SWE-rebench | 65.3 | -0.2 |
| Epoch AI | 64.6 | -0.9 |
| Vals AI | 65.2 | -0.3 |
| Provider reports · Anthropic | 65.5 | -0.0 |
| Provider reports · Moonshot AI | 65.4 | -0.1 |
| Provider reports · Meta | 65.5 | -0.0 |
| Provider reports · Mistral | 65.5 | +0.0 |
| All provider reports | 65.3 | -0.2 |
Every benchmark family
| Removed evidence | Recomputed score | Change |
|---|---|---|
| deepswe | 63.2 | -2.3 |
| critpt | 67.0 | +1.5 |
| frontiercode | 66.6 | +1.1 |
| simpleqa | 66.5 | +1.0 |
| frontiermath | 64.7 | -0.8 |
| arc-agi-3 | 64.8 | -0.7 |
| mmmu-pro | 66.2 | +0.6 |
| ifbench | 65.1 | -0.4 |
| tau-bench | 65.2 | -0.3 |
| aime | 65.7 | +0.2 |
| epoch-game-puzzles | 65.3 | -0.2 |
| hle | 65.7 | +0.2 |
| omniscience | 65.3 | -0.2 |
| mmlu-pro | 65.7 | +0.2 |
| multi-swe-bench | 65.3 | -0.2 |
| livebench-instructions | 65.7 | +0.2 |
| aa-lcr | 65.3 | -0.2 |
| swe-atlas-qna | 65.3 | -0.2 |
| scicode | 65.7 | +0.2 |
| swe-rebench | 65.3 | -0.2 |
| gdp-pdf | 65.7 | +0.1 |
| harvey | 65.4 | -0.1 |
| swe-atlas-test-writing | 65.4 | -0.1 |
| livebench-language | 65.6 | +0.1 |
| livebench-coding | 65.4 | -0.1 |
| vibe-code | 65.4 | -0.1 |
| arc-agi | 65.4 | -0.1 |
| terminal-bench | 65.4 | -0.1 |
| livecodebench | 65.4 | -0.1 |
| livebench-reasoning | 65.4 | -0.1 |
| vals-legal-research | 65.4 | -0.1 |
| swe-atlas-refactoring | 65.4 | -0.1 |
| apex-agents | 65.6 | +0.1 |
| livebench-data | 65.6 | +0.1 |
| enigma-eval | 65.5 | -0.1 |
| math500 | 65.5 | -0.1 |
| gpqa | 65.6 | +0.0 |
| vals-finance-agent | 65.5 | -0.0 |
| gmmlu | 65.5 | -0.0 |
| vals-excel-modeling | 65.5 | -0.0 |
| vals-code-migration | 65.5 | -0.0 |
| analyst-agent | 65.5 | +0.0 |
| itbench | 65.5 | -0.0 |
| automationbench | 65.5 | -0.0 |
| livebench-math | 65.5 | +0.0 |
| enterprise-ops | 65.5 | +0.0 |
| briefcase | 65.5 | +0.0 |
| gdpval | 65.5 | +0.0 |
| swe-bench-pro | 65.5 | +0.0 |
What evidence is missing from the fit?
Across all collected settings for this model: 6 observations, 5 contributing, 0 matched without graph weight and 1 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.
- 1 · No reviewed effort for this catalog observation; any separately collected effort measurement is counted separately
Capability profile
One configuration, seven capabilities
- AGPT-5.5 Pro · XHigh1 of 7 capabilities supported
Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.
Agentic
UnknownHard reasoning
A69.0SupportedCoding
UnknownHuman pref
UnknownKnowledge
UnknownMultimodal
UnknownLong context
Unknown
Each profile belongs to the named configuration. Capability scores use a shared panel for all axes, distinct from the overall ranking panel; they are not accuracy percentages or direct head-to-head wins.
Compare this configuration →Explore the model evidence profile →
| Benchmark / source | High | XHigh |
|---|---|---|
CritPtBenchmark detailsBenchmark developed by Argonne and UIUC, with contributions from 60+ researchers globally · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12. | Not reported | 30.57% Reported settingsGPT-5.5 Pro (xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gpt-5-5-pro |
ARC-AGI-2Benchmark detailsOriginal public board. Configuration and task coverage may differ; inspect source. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12. | 84.58% Reported settingsGPT-5.5 Pro (High); Source model ID: gpt-5-5-pro-2026-04-23-high; 120 tasks | 84.16% Reported settingsGPT-5.5 Pro (XHigh); Source model ID: gpt-5-5-pro-2026-04-23-xhigh; 120 tasks |
Epoch · FrontierMath Tier 4 · v2.0.0Benchmark detailsEpoch AI internal evaluation. Mean accuracy under the published setting; exact task version and scorer stay separate. Related tasks share a family budget. Data by Epoch AI, CC BY. FrontierMath was developed with OpenAI funding and unequal access to part of the question set; this result is from Epoch's evaluation. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12. | Not reported | 78.05% Reported settingsEpoch AI Inspect; task 2.0.0; scorer verification_code; model=gpt-5.5-pro_xhigh; run=SFKXCPUu73mwxMoUotiZM2; mean accuracy; https://epoch.ai/data/benchmarks.csv |
Epoch · FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 · v2.0.0Benchmark detailsEpoch AI internal evaluation. Mean accuracy under the published setting; exact task version and scorer stay separate. Related tasks share a family budget. Data by Epoch AI, CC BY. FrontierMath was developed with OpenAI funding and unequal access to part of the question set; this result is from Epoch's evaluation. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-09-12. | Not reported | 87.72% Reported settingsEpoch AI Inspect; task 2.0.0; scorer verification_code; model=gpt-5.5-pro_xhigh; run=LSKDetgzyVojru45w7RJhf; mean accuracy; https://epoch.ai/data/benchmarks.csv |
What these comparisons mean
Each source reports its own effort labels. Matching labels do not establish equal compute budgets or identical fallback behavior. Open Reported settings to inspect the exact model name, agent and task coverage. Multiple results at one level remain visible rather than selecting the best. Source-reported None or Non-reasoning labels are not treated as evidence that an API supports those settings.
These measurements use their own dated source collection. The leaderboard fits identified configurations jointly; it contains no pooled model ratings. Explicit thinking budgets are separate configurations. Read the methodology.
Download all effort benchmark results · 7,424 results across 240 models · Collected 2026-09-12