UnifyBench

RankingEffort benchmarks

o3-pro

Compare models

5 measured results · 5 effort settings · 3 benchmark/harness combinations

Model evidence and sources →

Change model

Compare with

Choose a second model and its effort to see both profiles and benchmark differences below.

Compare with

Capability profile

One configuration, seven capabilities

Comparison score · 0–100
o3-pro · Reasoning capability radarComparison scores from 0 to 100. Unknown capabilities have no point; lines stop at gaps. Hollow points are preliminary. Exact values and support labels follow the chart.AgenticHard reasoningCodingHuman prefKnowledgeMultimodalLong context50100o3-pro · Reasoning · Hard reasoning: 21.6 · Preliminary

Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.

  • Agentic

    Unknown

  • Hard reasoning

    A21.6Preliminary

  • Coding

    Unknown

  • Human pref

    Unknown

  • Knowledge

    Unknown

  • Multimodal

    Unknown

  • Long 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.

Capability score evidence

o3-pro · Reasoning: 13.1 overall comparison score. Needs 3 benchmark families, 2 independently measured families

Hard reasoning only. The available task mix affects this estimate; missing areas remain unknown.

Which sources carry the weight?
  • Artificial Analysis · 100.0% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Which benchmark families carry the weight?
  • GPQA · 100.0% direct comparison weight

These shares describe direct comparison weight, not fractions of the final score or confidence. Source balancing does not give every family equal weight or remove correlations between overlapping sources.

This configuration did not qualify for the dated stability audit.

What evidence is missing from the fit?

Across all collected settings for this model: 7 observations, 4 contributing, 0 matched without graph weight and 3 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.

  • 1 · Effort is not identified
  • 1 · No reviewed effort for this catalog observation; any separately collected effort measurement is counted separately
  • 1 · Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core
Inspect every observation and exclusion →

Benchmark results

These are published benchmark scores. Supported effort estimates also appear on the Capability leaderboard. Results from different harnesses occupy different rows. Missing cells stay unknown; no scores are copied between effort levels.

Benchmark / sourceLowMediumHighReasoningUnspecified
GPQA DiamondArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings
Benchmark details

Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis

Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.

Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
84.55%
Reported settings

o3-pro; Reported effort: reasoning; Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/o3-pro; Mode from evaluator isReasoning metadata; effort budget not specified

Not reported
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize · v2 Semi-Private
Benchmark details

Original public board. Configuration and task coverage may differ; inspect source.

Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.

2.05%
Reported settings

o3-Pro (Low); Source model ID: o3-pro-2025-06-10-low; 120 tasks

1.94%
Reported settings

o3-Pro (Medium); Source model ID: o3-pro-2025-06-10-medium; 120 tasks

4.86%
Reported settings

o3-Pro (High); Source model ID: o3-pro-2025-06-10-high; 120 tasks

Not reportedNot reported
ThinkingBox-BenchMicrosoft and Hugging Face · ThinkingBox sandbox. Shared prompts, MCP tools, simulated user, and executable checks over terminal backend state.
Benchmark details

Task-weighted pass@1 on 507 stateful business workflows, 20 trials each. The stored score is the published overall from the 3 October 2026 blog. Display only. Excluded from weighted Overall.

Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.

Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
19.31%
Reported settings

o3-pro; ThinkingBox sandbox; shared prompts, tools, simulated user, and executable terminal-state checks; pass@1; 20 trials on each of 507 tasks; published task-weighted overall 19.31. Retail 37.70 (98); Auto insurance 2.95 (100); Travel 17.31 (104); Neobank 24.28 (104); Consulting 14.60 (101). Blog post 2026-10-03. The post does not name a reasoning-effort dial. The August 2026 paper excluded 636 o3-pro system/harness-error trials and published 20.60 overall. This October row is the blog figure and does not restate that exclusion. Display only. Excluded from weighted Overall.

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 · 8,916 results across 259 models · Collected 2026-10-18