EvoBrowseComp-EN: leaderboard

EvoBrowseComp (2026) tests web-browsing agents on 400 English multi-hop questions built from knowledge that appeared on the live web after model training cutoffs, so answers need genuine search rather than recall. Scored by accuracy with search and visit tools, judged by an LLM against the reference; higher is better.

Metric: Accuracy (%) on the 400 English EvoBrowseComp questions (complex multi-hop questions synthesized from fresh live-web knowledge to resist parametric recall), search agent with web search and page visit tools (Tongyi DeepResearch tool definitions), answers judged correct against the reference by a GLM-5-Chat judge; temperature 0.6, top_p 0.95, 128K context, at most 40 tool calls; higher is better. Source: arxiv.org. Saturation forecast: Around November 2027. 14 models tracked.

Top models

#ModelScoreOverall rank
1Claude Opus 4.8 (Max)46.2#56 (Claude Opus 4.8)
2Claude Opus 4.6 (Max)44.8#102 (Claude Opus 4.6)
3Qwen 3.5 397B A17B42#246
4GLM-539.2#260
5DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)34.5#258 (DeepSeek V4 Flash)
6Kimi K2.631#178
7Qwen 3.5 35B A3B29.2#482
8Qwen 3.5 122B A10B29.2#331
9DeepSeek V4 Flash (Non-reasoning)27.2#258 (DeepSeek V4 Flash)
10Qwen 3.5 27B25#359
11DeepSeek V3.2 (Thinking)23#406 (DeepSeek V3.2)
12Qwen 3 235B A22B 2507 (Thinking)16.5#463
13DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)16.5#188 (DeepSeek V4 Pro)
14DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)16.5#258 (DeepSeek V4 Flash)

No result here: #1 Claude Fable 5.2, #2 Gemini 4 Carbon, #5 Claude Opus 5.5.

Interactive version: theaggregate.ai/benchmark?slug=evobrowsecomp-en · How It Works · Data refreshed daily, snapshot 2026-11-13.