OpenAI / MODEL EVIDENCE

GPT-5 (minimal)

11 benchmarks · 18 observations · 11 sources · released 2025-08-07

Scores at a glance

11 benchmarks · large dot: GPT-5 (minimal); small dots: closest models where reported

9.2896.4

GPT-5 (minimal) · GPQA diamond · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗

3.768.3

GPT-5 (minimal) · Balrog · Average progress · % ↗

7.169.2

GPT-5 (minimal) · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Execution pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs ↗

7 more reported results

26.2% · GPT-5 (minimal) · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Search pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

20.6% · GPT-5 (minimal) · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Ambiguity pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

19.2% · GPT-5 (minimal) · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Adaptability pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

5.2% · GPT-5 (minimal) · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Time pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

13.1% · GPT-5 (minimal) · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Noise pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

11.5% · GPT-5 (minimal) · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Agent2Agent pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

18.2% · GPT-5 (minimal) · GAIA-2 · Gaia2 full · Overall pass@1 · baseline ReAct · three runs · Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments ↗

Closest models by score

Similar positions on shared benchmark leaderboards. Smaller gaps are closer.

o1 →OpenAI
6.6 percentile-point gap

4 of 5 shared benchmark comparisons

How similarity is measured

Mean absolute gap in percentile positions on shared benchmark settings; lower is closer. At least 60% overlap is required, with a minimum of three when available. Independent evaluations are used when there are at least three; otherwise published report comparisons are used. Repeated model observations within one setting are averaged before ranking. Writing-style traits and composite indices are excluded. This describes similarity, not an overall quality ranking.

Sources

Every plotted observation links to its evaluation. Reported configurations, benchmark versions and task subsets can differ; similarity describes shared scores, not training lift.

  1. Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments — published result table ↗

    Froger, Romain, Andrews, Pierre, Bettini, Matteo, Budhiraja, Amar, Cabral, Ricardo Silveira, Do, Virginie et al. · 2026

    All 24 authors

    Froger, Romain, Andrews, Pierre, Bettini, Matteo, Budhiraja, Amar, Cabral, Ricardo Silveira, Do, Virginie, Garreau, Emilien, Gaya, Jean-Baptiste, Laurençon, Hugo, Lecanu, Maxime, Malkan, Kunal, Mekala, Dheeraj, Ménard, Pierre, Bertran, Gerard Moreno-Torres, Piterbarg, Ulyana, Plekhanov, Mikhail, Rita, Mathieu, Rusakov, Andrey, Vorotilov, Vladislav, Wang, Mengjue, Yu, Ian, Benhalloum, Amine, Mialon, Grégoire, Scialom, Thomas

  2. BALROG: Benchmarking Agentic LLM and VLM Reasoning On Games ↗

    Paglieri, Davide, Cupiał, Bartłomiej, Coward, Samuel, Piterbarg, Ulyana, Wolczyk, Maciej, Khan, Akbir et al. · 2024

    All 13 authors

    Paglieri, Davide, Cupiał, Bartłomiej, Coward, Samuel, Piterbarg, Ulyana, Wolczyk, Maciej, Khan, Akbir, Pignatelli, Eduardo, Kuciński, Łukasz, Pinto, Lerrel, Fergus, Rob, Foerster, Jakob Nicolaus, Parker-Holder, Jack, Rocktäschel, Tim

  3. FutureSearch Evals ↗

    FutureSearch

  4. ARC-AGI-1 ↗

    Epoch AI

  5. ARC-AGI-2 ↗

    Epoch AI

  6. Chess Puzzles ↗

    Epoch AI

  7. CritPt v1 ↗

    Epoch AI

  8. FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) ↗

    Epoch AI

  9. GPQA Diamond ↗

    Epoch AI

  10. Mystery Game Puzzles ↗

    Epoch AI

  11. OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 ↗

    Epoch AI

Names used in source tables

GPT-5 (minimal)