o1 · MATH-500 ↗
1 more reported result
90.4 % · o1 · MATH 500 · Accuracy · Vals AI · MATH 500 ↗
OpenAI / MODEL EVIDENCE
44 benchmarks · 71 observations · 44 sources
44 benchmarks · large dot: o1; small dots: closest models where reported
o1 · MATH-500 ↗
90.4 % · o1 · MATH 500 · Accuracy · Vals AI · MATH 500 ↗
o1 (high) · GPQA diamond · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
75.76% · o1 (medium) · GPQA diamond · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · GPQA diamond ↗
74.24% · o1 (low) · GPQA diamond · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · GPQA diamond ↗
73.23 % · o1 · GPQA Diamond · Accuracy · Vals AI · GPQA Diamond ↗
o1 (high) · FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
o1 (high) · FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
10.18% · o1 (medium) · FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private ↗
8.42% · o1 (low) · FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private ↗
o1 (high) · MATH level 5 · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
94.41% · o1 (medium) · MATH level 5 · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · MATH level 5 ↗
o1 (high) · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
73.33% · o1 (medium) · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 ↗
53.33% · o1 (low) · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 ↗
o1 (high) · SimpleQA Verified · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
o1 (high) · Chess Puzzles · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
9% · o1 (low) · Chess Puzzles · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · Chess Puzzles ↗
8% · o1 (medium) · Chess Puzzles · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · Chess Puzzles ↗
o1 (high) · Aider coding benchmarks · Polyglot · percent correct ↗
84.2% · o1 · Aider coding benchmarks · Refactoring · percent correct · Aider refactoring benchmark ↗
o1 (medium) · ARC-AGI · Score · % ↗
27.2% · o1 (low) · ARC-AGI · Score · % · Epoch AI · ARC-AGI ↗
o1 (medium) · CadEval · Overall pass (%) · % ↗
o1 (medium) · Fiction.LiveBench · 16k token score · % ↗
o1 (medium) · GeoBench · ACW Country % · % ↗
o1 (medium) · Lech Mazur Writing · Mean rubric score / 10 ↗
o1 (high) · SimpleBench · Score (AVG@5) · % ↗
36.7% · o1 (medium) · SimpleBench · Score (AVG@5) · % · Epoch AI · SimpleBench ↗
o1 (medium) · VPCT · Correct · % ↗
o1 (high) · WeirdML · Accuracy · % ↗
o1 (unknown thinking) · HLE · Accuracy · % ↗
o1 (medium) · METR task performance & time horizons · Average task accuracy ↗
38.83159 minutes · o1 (medium) · METR task performance & time horizons · 50% success task horizon · METR-Horizon-v1.1 · Epoch AI · METR Autonomy / Task-Horizon Suite · public result data ↗
o1 (high) · LMCA · Score · % ↗
o1 (high) · DTBench · Accuracy · % ↗
o1 (high) · LiveBench · Global average · % ↗
o1 (unknown thinking) · SpatialViz-Bench · Overall score · % ↗
o1 (unknown thinking) · EnigmaEval · Accuracy · % ↗
o1 · General ECI · 26 October 2026 fit ↗
o1 · LegalBench · Accuracy ↗
o1 · TaxEval · Accuracy ↗
o1 · MedQA · Accuracy ↗
o1 · AIME · Accuracy ↗
o1 · MGSM · Accuracy ↗
o1 · MMLU Pro · Accuracy ↗
o1 · MMMU Pro · Accuracy ↗
o1 · LiveCodeBench · Accuracy ↗
o1 · Scale Labs · Risk elicitation score ↗
O1 · BrowseComp-ZH · Answer accuracy · original comparison ↗
o1‡ · MedXpertQA (Text & MM) · Multimodal-model text subset ↗
56.28% · o1‡ · MedXpertQA (Text & MM) · Multimodal subset · MedXpertQA: Benchmarking Expert-Level Medical Reasoning and Understanding ↗
44.67% · o1‡ · MedXpertQA (Text & MM) · Text-only models · MedXpertQA: Benchmarking Expert-Level Medical Reasoning and Understanding ↗
o1 · HealthBench · 16-run mean ↗
o1 · HealthBench Consensus · Overall criterion score · original comparison ↗
o1 · ChemBench · Overall accuracy · published model comparison ↗
80% · o1 · ChemBench · Human-evaluation subset · accuracy · published model comparison · Are large language models superhuman chemists? ↗
o1 · HealthBench Hard · Weighted rubric score · original model comparison ↗
o1 · SimpleQA · Correct answers · OpenAI Simple Evals · archived July 2025 ↗
o1 · DROP (Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs) · F1 · three-shot · OpenAI Simple Evals · archived July 2025 ↗
o1 (high) · TasteVal · Experimental compute multiplier · October 2026 paper comparison ↗
0.22 × · o1 (high) · TasteVal · Normalized final-performance multiplier · October 2026 paper comparison · TasteVal: Measuring the Experimental Research Taste of AI Systems Against Human Experts ↗
o1 · SWE-Lancer · IC SWE (Diamond) · pass@1 · original evaluation ↗
15.6% · o1 · SWE-Lancer · IC SWE (Diamond) · pass@1 · original evaluation · SWE-Lancer: Can Frontier LLMs Earn $1 Million from Real-World Freelance Software Engineering? ↗
16.5% · o1 · SWE-Lancer · IC SWE (Diamond) · pass@1 · original evaluation · SWE-Lancer: Can Frontier LLMs Earn $1 Million from Real-World Freelance Software Engineering? ↗
13.1% · o1 · SWE-Lancer · IC SWE (Diamond) · pass@1 · original evaluation · SWE-Lancer: Can Frontier LLMs Earn $1 Million from Real-World Freelance Software Engineering? ↗
20.3% · o1 · SWE-Lancer · IC SWE (Full) · pass@1 · original evaluation · SWE-Lancer: Can Frontier LLMs Earn $1 Million from Real-World Freelance Software Engineering? ↗
41.5% · o1 · SWE-Lancer · SWE Manager (Diamond) · pass@1 · original evaluation · SWE-Lancer: Can Frontier LLMs Earn $1 Million from Real-World Freelance Software Engineering? ↗
46.3% · o1 · SWE-Lancer · SWE Manager (Full) · pass@1 · original evaluation · SWE-Lancer: Can Frontier LLMs Earn $1 Million from Real-World Freelance Software Engineering? ↗
29.7% · o1 · SWE-Lancer · SWE-Lancer Diamond · pass@1 · original evaluation · SWE-Lancer: Can Frontier LLMs Earn $1 Million from Real-World Freelance Software Engineering? ↗
32.9% · o1 · SWE-Lancer · SWE-Lancer Full · pass@1 · original evaluation · SWE-Lancer: Can Frontier LLMs Earn $1 Million from Real-World Freelance Software Engineering? ↗
Similar positions on shared benchmark leaderboards. Smaller gaps are closer.
8 of 12 shared benchmark comparisons
10 of 12 shared benchmark comparisons
8 of 12 shared benchmark comparisons
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.
Every plotted observation links to its evaluation. Reported configurations, benchmark versions and task subsets can differ; similarity describes shared scores, not training lift.
Wang, Siting, Pei, Minnan, Sun, Luoyang, Deng, Cheng, Li, Yuchen, Shao, Kun, Tian, Zheng, Zhang, Haifeng, Wang, Jun
Yuxin Zuo, Shang Qu, Yifei Li, Zhangren Chen, Xuekai Zhu, Ermo Hua, Kaiyan Zhang, Ning Ding, Bowen Zhou
Arora, Rahul K., Wei, Jason, Hicks, Rebecca Soskin, Bowman, Preston, Quiñonero-Candela, Joaquin, Tsimpourlas, Foivos, Sharman, Michael, Shah, Meghan, Vallone, Andrea, Beutel, Alex, Heidecke, Johannes, Singhal, Karan
Adrian Mirza, Nawaf Alampara, Sreekanth Kunchapu, Martiño Ríos-García, Benedict Emoekabu, Aswanth Krishnan, Tanya Gupta, Mara Schilling-Wilhelmi, Macjonathan Okereke, Anagha Aneesh, Amir Mohammad Elahi, Mehrdad Asgari, Juliane Eberhardt, Hani M. Elbeheiry, María Victoria Gil, Maximilian Greiner, Caroline T. Holick, Christina Glaubitz, Tim Hoffmann, Abdelrahman Ibrahim, Lea C. Klepsch, Yannik Köster, Fabian Alexander Kreth, Jakob Meyer, Santiago Miret, Jan Matthias Peschel, Michael Ringleb, Nicole Roesner, Johanna Schreiber, Ulrich S. Schubert, Leanne M. Stafast, Dinga Wonanke, Michael Pieler, Philippe Schwaller, Kevin Maik Jablonka
Peilin Zhou, Bruce Leon, Xiang Ying, Can Zhang, Yifan Shao, Qichen Ye, Dading Chong, Zhiling Jin, Chenxuan Xie, Meng Cao, Yuxin Gu, Sixin Hong, Jing Ren, Jian Chen, Chao Liu, Yining Hua
2024-12-05 · 2024-12-17
O1 · o1 · o1 (high) · o1 (low) · o1 (medium) · o1 (unknown thinking) · o1‡