OSWorld 2.0 (partial)
Operating a real desktop through screenshots, mouse and keyboard to finish tasks across common apps.
- ModelScoreYour cost / mo
- 1Claude Opus 5.5 · Anthropicbest value81.8%
- 2Claude Fable 5.1 · Anthropic77.9%
- 3Gemini 3.8 Flash · Googlebest value59.0%
- 4Qwen3.8-Flash · Alibababest value52.3%
- 5Qwen3.7-Plus · Alibaba21.5%
“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 5.5 Table 8.1.A, p.174
Claude results use adaptive thinking at max effort, averaged over five trials (Terminal-Bench 4.0 at xhigh). Competitor figures come from the developers' own published results.
- 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.
- 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%).
- Qwen3.8-Flash model card (Benchmark Results)
Qwen's own tables. SWE tasks use Claude Code or mini-SWE-agent at temperature 1.0 and 256K context; HLE judged by GPT-4o. OSWorld 2.0 and two-setting rows are split. DeepSeek-V4-Flash is not in the vision table.
- Qwen3.7-Plus Qwen3.8-Flash-Next model card (Benchmark Results)
Qwen published Qwen3.7-Plus scores as a comparison column in its Qwen3.8 cards. The Qwen3.8-27B card reports slightly different Qwen3.7-Plus numbers for some rows (e.g. SWE-bench Pro 57.6, DeepSWE 14.2).
Only each model's own maker's number is shown; scores a maker reports for rival models are left out.