Weighted consensus · Public benchmarks

Agentic AI leaderboard

Compare AI models and effort settings for agentic work using sourced task evaluations and visible evidence coverage.

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.

Agentic leaders

Comparison score · 0–100

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

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

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

Adjust weights

Full ranking

142 entries

Custom capability ranking of measured model configurations. Scores are experimental; missing results remain unknown.
RankModelScoreCapability coverage
76Amazon Nova 2 Pro Preview · MediumAmazon19.3Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
77Claude Sonnet 4.5 · ReasoningAnthropic19.2Eligible · 100%5 families · 1 selected capabilities
78MiMo-V2.5 · ReasoningXiaomi18.5Eligible · 100%5 families · 1 selected capabilities
79Step 3.7 Flash · ReasoningStepFun18.1Eligible · 100%5 families · 1 selected capabilities
80GPT-5.1 · HighOpenAI17.3Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
81DeepSeek-V3.2 · ReasoningDeepSeek17.3Eligible · 100%3 families · 1 selected capabilities
82Qwen3.5-35B-A3B · ReasoningQwen17.3Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
83Qwen3.6-35B-A3B · ReasoningQwen17.2Eligible · 100%5 families · 1 selected capabilities
84Mistral Medium 3.5 · ReasoningMistral16.0Eligible · 100%7 families · 1 selected capabilities
85GPT-5 Mini · HighOpenAI15.6Eligible · 100%5 families · 1 selected capabilities
86NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Ultra · ReasoningNVIDIA15.5Eligible · 100%7 families · 1 selected capabilities
87Grok-4.3 · HighxAI15.4Eligible · 100%14 families · 1 selected capabilities
88Qwen3.5-122B-A10B · ReasoningQwen14.9Eligible · 100%5 families · 1 selected capabilities
89MiniMax-M2.7 · ReasoningMiniMax14.7Eligible · 100%8 families · 1 selected capabilities
90MiMo-V2-Flash · Non-reasoningXiaomi14.2Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
91Gemma 4 31B IT · ReasoningGoogle13.9Eligible · 100%7 families · 1 selected capabilities

More models on this page

About this ranking

This profile gives agentic work all the weight. Published agent-task evaluations contribute through matched benchmark families. Harnesses and reported settings remain attached to the evidence. These results describe the evaluated configurations; they do not establish how a model will perform in every workflow.

View the Capability ranking →

Behind the ranking

294 entries with published results · 142 ranked · 0 provisional estimates.

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

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: 22 Oct 2026
Mode: custom; evidence: documented; configurations: best
Weights: v3;agentic:100,hard_reasoning:0,coding:0,human_pref:0,knowledge:0,multimodal:0,long_context:0
https://unifybench.ai/rankings/agentic?page=4

Catalog data · Effort measurements · Configuration scoring rules · Methodology

Catalog dated 22 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 →