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.

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 119 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

200 entries

Custom capability ranking of measured model configurations. Scores are experimental; missing results remain unknown.
RankModelScoreCapability coverage
101Llama 4 Maverick · Non-reasoningMeta9.4Eligible · 100%4 families · 1 selected capabilities
102Qwen3-VL-32B-Thinking · ReasoningQwen9.2Eligible · 100%3 families · 1 selected capabilities
103Mistral Small 4 · ReasoningMistral9.1Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
104Qwen3.5-9B · ReasoningQwen8.9Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
105Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 · Non-reasoningQwen8.9Eligible · 100%3 families · 1 selected capabilities
106K EXAONE 236B A23B · ReasoningLG AI Research8.7Eligible · 100%4 families · 1 selected capabilities
107MiniMax-M1-80k · ReasoningMiniMax8.6Eligible · 100%3 families · 1 selected capabilities
108GPT-5 Nano · HighOpenAI8.4Eligible · 100%4 families · 1 selected capabilities
109Solar Open 100B · ReasoningUpstage8.4Eligible · 100%3 families · 1 selected capabilities
110Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B-Instruct · Non-reasoningQwen8.4Eligible · 100%3 families · 1 selected capabilities
111Magistral Medium 1.2 · ReasoningMistral7.9Eligible · 100%4 families · 1 selected capabilities
112DiffusionGemma 26B A4B · ReasoningGoogle7.8Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
113Claude Haiku 4.5 · ReasoningAnthropic7.5Eligible · 100%4 families · 1 selected capabilities
114Qwen3.5-omni-plus · Non-reasoningQwen7.3Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
115Command A Plus 05 2026 · ReasoningCohere7.3Eligible · 100%2 families · 1 selected capabilities
116GLM-4.7-Flash · ReasoningZ.ai7.2Eligible · 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

279 entries with published results · 200 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: 30 Sept 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?page=5

Catalog data · Effort measurements · Configuration scoring rules · Methodology

Catalog dated 30 Sept 2026. Effort evidence collected 30 Sept 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 →