CharXiv Reasoning (with tools)
We haven't written a description for this benchmark yet; see the card notes below for how each maker ran it.
- ModelScoreYour cost / mo
- 1Claude Opus 4.7 · Anthropicbest value91.0%
- 2Gemini 3.6 Flash · Googlebest value89.4%
- 3Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Googlebest value76.5%
“Best value”: no other model here reports a higher score at a lower cost for your workload. Scores are self-reported by each maker with different settings, so treat close calls as ties.
How each maker reported it
- Claude Opus 4.7 Table 8.1.A, p.191–192
Opus 4.7 uses adaptive thinking at max effort with default sampling, averaged over 5 trials (Terminal-Bench 2.0 with thinking disabled; Finance Agent at high effort). Competitor figures come from the developers' own published cards or leaderboards.
- Gemini 3.6 Flash p.4 (table also on the model card web page)
Results as of July 2026, as published in Google's model card. Competitor figures are as listed by Google.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite p.4
Results as of July 2026, as published in Google's model card. Competitor figures are as listed by Google.
Only each model's own maker's number is shown; scores a maker reports for rival models are left out.