Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Completing multi-step tasks in a real terminal: shell commands, builds, data wrangling and debugging, graded automatically.
- ModelScoreYour cost / mo
- 1GPT-6 Astra · OpenAIbest value64.6%
- 2Claude Opus 5.5 · Anthropicbest value58.7%
- 3Claude Fable 5.1 · Anthropic52.6%
“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
- GPT-6 Astra Launch post (openai.com/index/gpt-6-astra); system card §6, §10.1; GPT-6.1 Sol addendum §5, §9
Coding and reasoning rows come from the GPT-6 Astra launch post (3 Sep 2026); OpenAI's own comparison table, settings as published there. The system card reports safety and Preparedness evaluations, not general capability benchmarks. Cyber and bio scores are at maximum reasoning effort; bio scores are refusal-adjusted. HealthBench scores are length-adjusted. GPT-6.1 Sol and some GPT-5.6 Sol values come from the GPT-6.1 Sol addendum (29 Sep 2026). Unverified: openai.com blocks automated access, so the coding and reasoning figures were read from copies of the launch post, and they don't appear in the system card or developer docs.
- 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.
Only each model's own maker's number is shown; scores a maker reports for rival models are left out.