OmniaBench - Program: leaderboard

Procedural agent tasks with branching and iteration whose outcome is checked by executable verification code; from OmniaBench (2026). Pass@1 in percent, higher is better.

Metric: Pass@1 (%; 30 procedural tasks with branching and iteration verified by executable VerifyCode checks; a task counts as solved only when every rubric item is satisfied (Program tasks by a VerifyCode check); up to 200 tool-call steps; challenging set of 644 tasks evaluated June 29 to July 15, 2026). Source: arxiv.org. Saturation forecast: Around February 2027. 22 models tracked.

Top models

#ModelScoreOverall rank
1Qwen 3.7 Max (Thinking)66.67#145 (Qwen 3.7 Max)
2Kimi K2.6 (Thinking)63.33#178 (Kimi K2.6)
3Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)63.33#111 (Claude Sonnet 5)
4Claude Opus 4.7 (Max)63.33#79 (Claude Opus 4.7)
5GLM-5.2 (Max)60#138 (GLM-5.2)
6GPT-5.5 (High)60#49 (GPT-5.5)
7DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)53.33#188 (DeepSeek V4 Pro)
8GLM-5 (Thinking)53.33#260 (GLM-5)
9Qwen 3.5 397B A17B50#246
10GPT-5.6 Sol (High)50#30 (GPT-5.6 Sol)
11Qwen 3.6 27B46.67#341
12DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)43.33#258 (DeepSeek V4 Flash)
13Qwen 3.6 35B A3B36.67#462
14Gemini 3.1 Pro (Preview)30#94
15Qwen 3.5 35B A3B30#482

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

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