GDPval-AA v2

How each maker reported it

• Claude Opus 5 Table 8.1.A, p.148–149

  Claude Opus 5 results use adaptive thinking at max effort, averaged over five trials (ARC-AGI-3 at high effort). GPT-5.6 Sol's FrontierBench figure uses Codex and its ARC-AGI-1 figure is at xhigh. The Fable 5 HealthBench Professional figure carries a footnote reading "Mythos 5". Competitor figures come from the developers' own published results or leaderboards.

• Claude Fable 5.1 Table 8.1.A, p.167

  Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 share weights, so column 0 covers both (likewise Fable 5 / Mythos 5). Claude results use adaptive thinking at max effort, averaged over five trials. Terminal-Bench 4.0 values are from §8.6, p.171 (Mythos 5.1: 60.9%; GPT-5.6 Sol from the public leaderboard). Competitor figures come from the developers' own published results or leaderboards.

• Muse Spark 1.3 model page; Muse Spark 1.3 evaluation methodology

  Muse Spark 1.3, GPT 5.6 Sol and Opus 5 at max reasoning effort; Muse Spark 1.2 at xhigh. Meta reports the highest comparable score from its own runs, official leaderboards or the other makers' own reports. OSWorld 2.0 version 08.08, except 1.2 on 06.24. Agentic IF Index is a Meta-internal composite. Meta's table has no MRCR scores for Opus 5.

• Grok 4.6 §2–7, p.7–28

  Grok models at high effort (EEBench Grok 4.6 xhigh is 60.0%). Competitors at max effort (Fable 5 with fallback); GPT-5.6 Sol at xhigh on APEX-SWE and CADGenBench, high on DeepSearchQA. Most results come from third-party evaluators, each with its own harness. CyberGym is run without production safeguards.

• Muse Spark 1.2 launch post charts; Muse Spark 1.2 & Muse Code evaluation methodology

  Values read from Meta's published bar charts. Terminal-Bench 2.1 and DeepSWE v1.1 run each model in its own agent product (Muse Code for 1.2, mini-swe-agent for 1.1, Claude Code, Codex, Grok Build, Antigravity CLI), pass@1 averaged over five attempts, so DeepSWE is not harness-identical to the official leaderboard. Muse Spark at xhigh, Opus 5 and GPT at max, Grok and Gemini at high. The MCP Atlas chart shows Opus 5 at xhigh and omits GPT 5.6 Terra, Grok 4.5 and Gemini 3.6 Flash. Meta Internal Coding Bench is 440 tasks from Meta's own codebase.

• Claude Sonnet 5 Table 8.1.A, p.115–116; SWE-bench variants §8.2, p.116

  Claude Sonnet 5 results use adaptive thinking at max effort, averaged over five trials. BrowseComp is the single-agent score (86.6% multi-agent) with a 10M-token limit and compaction. GPT-5.5 Terminal-Bench 2.1 figure uses Codex CLI. Competitor figures come from the developers' own published results.

• Gemini 3.8 Flash p.5

  Results as of September 2026, as published in Google's model card. Prices in the card list $0.75 / $3.75 with $1.50 / $7.50 as the regular rate. LVBench value for 3.8 Flash is the agentic setting (static: 87.1%).

• Grok 4.5 §2–7, p.5–19

  Grok 4.5 at high effort; competitors at max (Fable 5 with fallback), GPT-5.5 at xhigh. Results come from mixed harnesses and evaluators; some competitor figures are taken from developers' own cards. CyberGym is run without production safeguards.

• 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.

• Muse Glimmer 30B Benchmarks

  Meta's own results. Muse Glimmer at high reasoning; Gemma4-31B and Qwen3.6-27B in thinking mode. GDPVal-AA v2 is an Elo-style score.