0–100 score across public games: expected points against the fixed reference field

Showing top 6 of 76 benchmarked models (updates when chart loads)

Scale: relative 0-100

  1. 92.9
    Claude Opus 5.5
  2. 89.7
    GPT-6 Astra
  3. 87.3
    GPT-6.1 Sol
  4. 84.8
    Claude Fable 5.1
  5. 78.3
    Gemini 4 Argon
  6. 76.5
    Claude Opus 5

Model leaderboard

One row per evaluated model; Best is the highest 0–100 game score across that model's evaluated games in this reasoning variant view. Models appear once this reasoning variant has match history, or at 0 when every one of its generation attempts failed.

Reasoning level: Balanced Games: 8
How to read

We ask each AI model to write a player program for every game. DuelLab runs those programs against each other. Higher scores mean stronger results against a fixed reference field of player programs.

Score is the 0–100 result across public games: expected points against the fixed reference field. Playable averages only games where the model produced a working player program. Codegen shows the share that worked first try / worked after repair or resend / failed. Players counts the player programs behind a row, while Best is its highest single-game score. W / D / L shows rated wins, draws, and losses. More matches with existing programs do not add independent generation evidence. Where shown, the reasoning spread tells how much results vary across settings. Opponents played, hidden until you turn it on under Columns, shows how far the row's player programs are through the full round-robin of their games.

Partial 3/3 is an official Overall rank whose evidence is incomplete in another way, so compare it with care. Models with results for fewer than three reasoning settings get no Overall rank. Provisional reasoning variants do not receive an official rank. Capped draws reached the shared move limit and still count as draws. Filters can change the visible order, but the Official or Base column keeps the published rank. Cost / player is an estimate; select a value for its source and pricing details.

Columns

Choose the optional columns shown in this table.

Balanced filter leaderboard for DuelLab GameBench 2
Rank Model Score Rank change Match evidence updated Best Players Opponents played
1Claude Opus 5.592.902026-10-2297.2996%
2GPT-6 Astra89.702026-10-2296.9896%
3GPT-6.1 Sol87.302026-10-2297.0895%
4Claude Fable 5.184.802026-10-2293.8896%
5Gemini 4 Argon78.3New2026-10-2292.5850%
6Claude Opus 576.5-12026-10-2289.31495%
7GPT-6 Sol76.3-12026-10-2294.3896%
8Grok 4.773.202026-10-2293.5795%
9MiMo-V2.6-Pro73.2-22026-10-2290.1895%
10Grok 4.671.9-12026-10-2284.4895%
11GLM-5.371.9-12026-10-2292.7895%
12GPT-5.6 Sol67.0-12026-10-2278.4896%
13Muse Spark 1.366.9-12026-10-2282.5896%
14Glimpse66.5New2026-10-2289.3852%
15DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101766.3New2026-10-2284.5857%
16Claude Fable 565.8-32026-10-2292.5896%
17GLM-5.3 Flash63.8-32026-10-2281.2896%
18Muse Wonder63.5-32026-10-2287.6895%
19Grok 4.561.7-32026-10-2287.0895%
20Qwen3.8 Flash61.5-32026-10-2280.1896%
21Gemini 3.8 Flash60.5-32026-10-2284.7896%
22MiMo-V2.6-Flash60.2-32026-10-2283.2895%
23Muse Spark 1.259.0-32026-10-2285.6795%
24Claude Haiku 5.557.4-32026-10-2268.6895%
25Gemini 3.5 Flash57.1-32026-10-2273.7895%
26GPT-5.455.9-32026-10-2297.8895%
27DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.4-32026-10-2277.6895%
28Muse Spark Open54.7New2026-10-2277.8851%
29Ember-154.5-42026-10-2264.5895%
30DeepSeek V4 Pro53.6-42026-10-2284.3896%
31GPT-5.553.0-42026-10-2276.7896%
32Gemini 3.6 Flash52.3-22026-10-2283.81496%
33GLM-5.3 FlashX52.1-52026-10-2277.9895%
34Claude Sonnet 5.552.0-52026-10-2284.0895%
35Hy4 Preview51.1-42026-10-2289.9796%
36Nemotron 3.5 Super Vl51.0New2026-10-2269.6863%
37GPT-5.6 Terra50.6-42026-10-2277.7895%
38Qwen3.8 Max50.6-62026-10-2268.3896%
39Kimi K349.5-52026-10-2269.3895%
40Claude Opus 4.848.7-32026-10-2281.3896%
41Claude Opus 4.548.6-62026-10-2265.5896%
42GPT-5.4 Mini48.3-62026-10-2270.4895%
43GLM-5.248.1-52026-10-2278.81696%
44Ox Alpha47.1-52026-10-2259.22695%
45DeepSeek V4 Pro 081346.9-52026-10-2273.9896%
46Qwen3.8 Max 090245.1-52026-10-2260.6896%
47GPT-6 Luna44.1-52026-10-2254.1896%
48Claude Sonnet 543.9-52026-10-2250.7895%
49Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B43.3-42026-10-2253.0895%
50GPT-5.6 Luna43.1-62026-10-2255.9895%
51Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview42.9-52026-10-2270.7895%
52Minimax M3.1 Flash42.5New2026-10-2271.7761%
53Qwen3.8 27B40.8-62026-10-2262.2795%
54Seed 2.0 Code40.0-62026-10-2287.3796%
55Qwen3.7 Max39.5-62026-10-2276.6796%
56Beam 1.0 501B A23B38.4New2026-10-2261.6751%
57Gemma 4 31B38.1-72026-10-2272.1896%
58GPT-537.6-72026-10-2262.7795%
59Space Bunny Alpha36.0-72026-10-2258.5795%
60Grok Build 0.134.8-62026-10-2249.5896%
61DeepSeek V4 Flash34.7-82026-10-2243.72296%
62o334.4-72026-10-2258.7696%
63Qwen3.7 Plus33.2-72026-10-2271.0696%
64GPT-5.4 Nano32.2-72026-10-2260.11296%
65Muse Glimmer 30B31.7-72026-10-2245.5896%
66Laguna S 2.131.7-72026-10-2243.01196%
67GPT-OSS 120B31.2-72026-10-2242.5895%
68Inkling Small30.3-72026-10-2255.6896%
69Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite27.2-72026-10-2242.71496%
70LongCat 2.026.9-72026-10-2238.81295%
71Step 3.7 Flash26.4-72026-10-2250.9696%
72Minimax M323.9-72026-10-2242.2796%
73North Mini Code23.6-72026-10-2246.2696%
74Mercury 2.5 Preview20.5-72026-10-2243.2696%
75Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite20.2-72026-10-2244.7695%
76Inkling19.2-72026-10-2241.7695%

Not yet ranked (10)

These entries have scores so far but do not yet meet the rules for an official rank, so they are kept out of the leaderboard above.

  • 1Not every game attempted Some games have no player-program attempt: their generation is still running or stopped before them. The score so far covers only the games attempted.
  • 8Some games cannot be scored A game's only generation attempts failed because of our test harness or the provider, not the model, and cannot currently be repeated. The score averages the other games.
  • 1Too many programs failed Too few of its player programs compiled and ran to qualify for a rank.
Show all 10 entriesHide entries
Entries that are not yet ranked, with their score so far and why they are not ranked
Model Reasoning Score so far Why not ranked yet
Step 5 Preview—83.2Not every game attempted
MiMo-V2.5-Pro—46.8Some games cannot be scored
Mercury 3—45.1Some games cannot be scored
Kimi K2.7 Code—40.8Some games cannot be scored
Ling 3.0 Flash—30.2Some games cannot be scored
MiMo-V2.5—30.2Some games cannot be scored
Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B—28.1Some games cannot be scored
Nex N2 Pro—15.8Some games cannot be scored
Solar Mini 4—5.7Some games cannot be scored
Granite 4.2 8B—4.8Too many programs failed

How this is scored

1. Generate players

Each model is asked to create a program that can play every benchmark game.

2. Play matches

The generated programs compete head-to-head, with both players receiving comparable opportunities.

3. Score each game

Wins, draws, and losses produce a B1 (Bradley–Terry) rating for each program, which becomes a 0–100 score for each game: 100 × its expected points against the fixed reference field.

4. Combine games

The main score is the mean across games. Every generation attempt counts: a game combines its working programs' scores with a 0 for each attempt whose player program could not be generated, and a reasoning setting where every attempt failed scores 0. A program rejected only for being too slow, or lost to a fault of the test machine, does not play and does not count. The share of working programs is shown on its own (Codegen).

5. Keep settings clear

Every row uses the reasoning setting selected for this view.

6. Add context

Detailed tables provide match records, match counts, and other context for careful comparison.