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

Showing top 6 of 83 benchmarked models (updates when chart loads)

Scale: relative 0-100

  1. 90.7
    Pareto 26.10
  2. 89.8
    Pareto 26.10 Preview
  3. 86.5
    Claude Fable 5.1
  4. 85.0
    GPT-6 Astra
  5. 81.0
    Gemini 4 Argon
  6. 78.0
    Claude Opus 5.5

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: Baseline 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.

Baseline filter leaderboard for DuelLab GameBench 2
Rank Model Score Rank change Match evidence updated Best Players Opponents played
1Pareto 26.1090.7New2026-10-2296.7865%
2Pareto 26.10 Preview89.8-12026-10-2295.8896%
3Claude Fable 5.186.5-12026-10-2293.8895%
4GPT-6 Astra85.0-12026-10-2294.4896%
5Gemini 4 Argon81.0New2026-10-2291.6850%
6Claude Opus 5.578.0-22026-10-2292.0995%
7GPT-6.1 Sol77.5-22026-10-2294.4895%
8Claude Opus 572.0-22026-10-2289.21496%
9GPT-6 Sol66.9-22026-10-2284.7895%
10Claude Fable 560.2-22026-10-2285.7896%
11GPT-5.6 Sol57.1-22026-10-2280.1895%
12Muse Wonder56.7-22026-10-2284.8895%
13Muse Spark Open56.5New2026-10-2285.0849%
14Gemini 3.8 Flash55.6-32026-10-2277.1896%
15GLM-5.3 FlashX51.9-32026-10-2266.2895%
16Kimi K351.7-32026-10-2293.0895%
17DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101751.5New2026-10-2281.7863%
18GLM-5.351.2-42026-10-2271.7895%
19Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B51.2-42026-10-2283.6895%
20MiMo-V2.6-Pro50.9-42026-10-2281.9895%
21Qwen3.8 Max 090250.0-42026-10-2281.0895%
22Grok 4.549.1-42026-10-2282.6896%
23GLM-5.3 Flash48.5-22026-10-2272.2896%
24Grok 4.748.4-52026-10-2282.5795%
25Qwen3.8 Max48.4-52026-10-2290.5896%
26Claude Opus 4.547.7-42026-10-2277.3896%
27GPT-5.446.8-42026-10-2281.0895%
28Grok 4.645.1-32026-10-2266.5896%
29GPT-6 Luna45.1-32026-10-2272.3895%
30Hy4 Preview44.8-62026-10-2263.9896%
31Claude Sonnet 543.7-42026-10-2256.3896%
32Claude Opus 4.842.7-42026-10-2281.1796%
33o342.4-42026-10-2251.3895%
34GPT-4.142.3-42026-10-2261.6896%
35Muse Spark 1.241.8-42026-10-2256.2896%
36GPT-541.6-42026-10-2270.6695%
37GLM-5.241.6-42026-10-2249.72495%
38Ox Alpha41.5-42026-10-2251.82895%
39Muse Spark 1.341.3-42026-10-2255.9896%
40Claude Sonnet 5.541.2-42026-10-2258.8895%
41Beam 1.0 501B A23B40.7New2026-10-2282.6750%
42MiMo-V2.6-Flash40.5-52026-10-2268.5796%
43Gemini 3.6 Flash40.5-52026-10-2255.71695%
44Claude Haiku 5.539.4-42026-10-2252.3895%
45Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite39.2-62026-10-2262.21596%
46Mercury 339.1New2026-10-2268.1852%
47Ember-139.1-62026-10-2251.1895%
48GPT-5.537.6-62026-10-2252.5795%
49DeepSeek V4.1 Flash36.5-62026-10-2248.4895%
50GPT-5.6 Terra36.1-62026-10-2254.6795%
51Qwen3.7 Max35.8-62026-10-2266.2796%
52Mistral Large 435.7-62026-10-2263.6796%
53Qwen3.8 Flash34.3-62026-10-2254.8895%
54Gemini 3.5 Flash32.3-52026-10-2249.71495%
55Laguna S 2.132.2-72026-10-2250.21295%
56Minimax M3.1 Flash31.8New2026-10-2270.4762%
57DeepSeek V4 Flash31.0-72026-10-2257.5796%
58MiMo-V2.5-Pro30.7-72026-10-2249.1796%
59Step 3.7 Flash30.7-72026-10-2249.1696%
60Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B30.7-62026-10-2262.1796%
61Minimax M330.5-62026-10-2259.3696%
62Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview30.4-62026-10-2242.9895%
63Hy3 Preview30.4-52026-10-2278.6696%
64GPT-5.4 Mini30.3-112026-10-2245.3895%
65Inkling Small30.2-82026-10-2256.5896%
66LongCat 2.029.8-72026-10-2242.61495%
67DeepSeek V4 Pro29.3-72026-10-2253.9695%
68DeepSeek V4 Pro 081329.2-72026-10-2261.1695%
69Space Bunny Alpha28.3-72026-10-2243.9695%
70Inkling27.6-72026-10-2248.81296%
71GPT-5.4 Nano27.0-72026-10-2250.61296%
72GPT-5.6 Luna26.0-52026-10-2242.9895%
73Seed 2.0 Code25.9-82026-10-2245.6795%
74MiMo-V2.525.9-82026-10-2242.51796%
75GPT-OSS 120B24.4-72026-10-2243.4695%
76Mercury 2.5 Preview24.3-72026-10-2246.0596%
77Muse Glimmer 30B24.0-72026-10-2244.2695%
78Mistral Medium 3.523.1-72026-10-2241.2796%
79Gemma 4 31B20.4-72026-10-2246.3695%
80Glimpse19.5New2026-10-2254.7556%
81Ling 3.0 Flash18.4-82026-10-2235.31195%
82Qwen3.7 Plus18.1-82026-10-2243.4696%
83Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite11.4-82026-10-2242.9596%

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.

  • 2Not 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.
  • 1Some 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.
  • 1Every program failed None of the setting's generation attempts produced a working player program, so it scores 0.
  • 6Too 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
Nex N2 Pro—36.2Some games cannot be scored
Step 5 Preview—35.0Not every game attempted
Ling 3.1 Flash—33.6Not every game attempted
Nex N2.5 Pro—18.2Too many programs failed
Qwen3.8 27B—17.5Too many programs failed
Nemotron 3.5 Super Vl—12.0Too many programs failed
GPT-4.1 Nano—11.8Too many programs failed
North Mini Code—6.8Too many programs failed
Solar Mini 4—5.1Too many programs failed
Granite 4.2 8B—0.0Every program 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.