Weighted consensus · Public benchmarks

LLM knowledge leaderboard

Compare AI models and effort settings across published knowledge benchmarks, with sources and evidence coverage for each result.

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.

Knowledge 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 · Including unranked entries

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

Adjust weights

Full ranking

471 entries

Custom capability ranking of measured model configurations. Scores are experimental; missing results remain unknown.
RankModelScoreCapability coverage
26GPT-5.4 · XHighOpenAI39.9Eligible · 100%5 families · 1 selected capabilities
27Kimi K3 · MaxMoonshot39.9Eligible · 100%3 families · 1 selected capabilities
28DeepSeek V4-Pro 0813 · MaxDeepSeek38.0Eligible · 100%3 families · 1 selected capabilities
29DeepSeek V4-Pro 0424 · MaxDeepSeek36.6Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
30Claude Opus 4.6 · HighAnthropic35.6Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
31GPT-5.2 · XHighOpenAI34.6Eligible · 100%3 families · 1 selected capabilities
32DeepSeek V4 Flash 0424 · MaxDeepSeek32.5Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
33GPT-5.6 Terra · MaxOpenAI32.5Eligible · 100%5 families · 1 selected capabilities
34Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite · ReasoningGoogle32.1Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
35GPT-5 · HighOpenAI31.4Eligible · 100%4 families · 1 selected capabilities
36Qwen3.7-max · ReasoningQwen30.2Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
37Claude Opus 4.5 · Thinking 64KAnthropic30.2Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
38GPT-5.1 · HighOpenAI29.4Eligible · 100%4 families · 1 selected capabilities
39Kimi-K2.6 · ReasoningMoonshot28.5Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
40Qwen3.5-397B-A17B · ReasoningQwen28.4Eligible · 100%3 families · 1 selected capabilities
41Grok-4.3 · MediumxAI26.7Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities

More models on this page

About this ranking

This profile gives knowledge all the weight. It compares measured configurations on knowledge evaluations, grouped by benchmark family. It does not measure every aspect of intelligence. Use the overall ranking and other task profiles to build a broader shortlist.

View the Capability ranking →

Behind the ranking

294 entries with published results · 204 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:0,hard_reasoning:0,coding:0,human_pref:0,knowledge:100,multimodal:0,long_context:0
https://unifybench.ai/rankings/knowledge?evidence=documented&page=2&view=overview

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 →