Synopticon
Synopticon Capability Index

Every ranked AI model, best first.

Benchmark scores don't compare: every test has its own difficulty, its own chance floor, its own grading. The SCI fits them into a single capability score per model, and weighs an independent measurement three times as heavily as the lab's own claim.

As of November 14, 2026, Synopticon Research's SCI ranks Claude Fable 5.2 first at 167.6. The top 100 of 353 ranked models are listed below; the full table is searchable and sortable.

How fast the frontier climbs

Every dated model by release date. The step line tracks the best score to date; the scale is pinned so Claude 3.5 Sonnet = 130 and GPT-5 (high) = 150.

The leaderboard

One row per model; a row folds its reasoning-effort and harness variants together and shows its best configuration with ten or more hard-benchmark results. Click a row to see every configuration we score.

#▼ Model▼ Lab▼ SCI▼ Evidence▼ Released▼
1Claude Fable 5.2▾Anthropic
167.6
161Nov '26
2Claude Mythos 5.2lab-reported onlyAnthropic
166.6
14Nov '26
3Gemini 4 Carbon▾Google
165.7
116Oct '26
4GPT-6 Astra▾OpenAI
165.0
362Sep '26
5Claude Opus 5.5▾Anthropic
165.0
330Sep '26
6Claude Mythos PreviewpreviewAnthropic
164.4
15Apr '26
7GPT-6.1 Terra▾OpenAI
164.2
136Oct '26
8GPT-6.1 Sol▾OpenAI
164.1
265Sep '26
9Claude Sonnet 5.5▾Anthropic
164.0
280Sep '26
10Claude Fable 5.1▾Anthropic
163.3
277Sep '26
11Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic
163.2
28Sep '26
12Claude Mythos 5Anthropic
163.0
12Jun '26
13Claude Fable 5▾Anthropic
162.9
243Jun '26
14Gemini 4 Argon▾Google
162.9
252Oct '26
15GPT-6 Sol▾OpenAI
162.2
207Sep '26
16GPT-5.5 Prothin evidence▾OpenAI
162.0
15Apr '26
17Claude Opus 5▾Anthropic
161.9
299Jul '26
18Gemini 4 HydrogennewGoogle
161.4
75Nov '26
19Kimi K3.1 Pro▾Moonshot AI
161.3
145Oct '26
20GPT-5.6 Sol▾OpenAI
161.3
295Jul '26
21ERNIE 5.5 Flash PreviewpreviewnewBaidu
161.0
14Nov '26
22Muse Wonder FullMeta
160.9
122Oct '26
23Atria Dawn Previewpreviewlab-reported onlythin evidenceShanghai AI Laboratory
160.7
7Sep '26
24Qwen3.8-Max-0902▾Alibaba
160.7
27Sep '26
25Muse WonderMeta
160.4
146Oct '26
26GPT-5.6 Terra▾OpenAI
160.2
250Jul '26
27Muse Wonder 1.0thin evidenceMeta
160.2
5Oct '26
28GPT-5.4 Prothin evidence▾OpenAI
159.7
14Mar '26
29GPT-5.5▾OpenAI
159.7
309Apr '26
30Claude Haiku 5.5▾Anthropic
159.4
199Oct '26
31Gemini 3.8 Flash▾Google
158.8
274Sep '26
32Claude Opus 4.8▾Anthropic
158.8
283May '26
33Inkling 2 Smallnew▾Thinking Machines
158.7
121Nov '26
34GPT-5.4▾OpenAI
158.3
192Mar '26
35Grok 4.7▾xAI
158.3
246Sep '26
36Nex-N2.5lab-reported onlythin evidenceNex-AGI
158.3
6Sep '26
37GLM-5.3▾Zhipu AI
158.1
235Aug '26
38Muse Spark 1.3▾Meta
158.0
177Sep '26
39Kimi K3▾Moonshot AI
158.0
304Jul '26
40Qwen3.8 Max▾Alibaba
158.0
192Aug '26
41Gemini 3.7 Flash▾Google
157.9
181Aug '26
42GPT-5.2 Prothin evidence▾OpenAI
157.9
10Dec '25
43Grok 4.6▾xAI
157.9
212Aug '26
44IQuest-Q1lab-reported onlythin evidenceIQuest
157.9
7Sep '26
45DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek
157.8
116Oct '26
46DeepSeek V4.1 Flash▾DeepSeek
157.8
224Sep '26
47GPT-5.6 Luna▾OpenAI
157.6
258Jul '26
48MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi
157.5
187Sep '26
49GPT-6 Luna▾OpenAI
157.5
259Sep '26
50GPT-5.6 Sol Pro▾OpenAI
157.4
16—
51Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewpreviewGoogle
157.3
25—
52Claude Opus 4.7▾Anthropic
157.2
234Apr '26
53Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba
157.0
10Aug '26
54Step 5 PreviewpreviewStepFun
156.7
107—
55GLM-5.3-FlashZhipu AI
156.7
194Aug '26
56MiMo-V2.6-FlashXiaomi
156.7
176Sep '26
57Claude Sonnet 5▾Anthropic
156.6
234Jun '26
58DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813▾DeepSeek
156.6
206Aug '26
59Muse Spark 1.1▾Meta
156.4
128Jul '26
60Muse Spark OpenMeta
156.3
95Oct '26
61Nex-N2.5-Prolab-reported onlythin evidenceNex-AGI
156.3
8Sep '26
62Hy4 previewpreviewTencent
156.3
200Aug '26
63GPT-5.2▾OpenAI
156.2
145Dec '25
64MiniMax-M3.1-FlashMiniMax
156.2
93Oct '26
65Muse Spark 1.2▾Meta
156.2
142Aug '26
66DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Expthin evidence▾DeepSeek
156.2
14Aug '26
67Seed 2.1 TurboByteDance
156.1
35Jun '26
68Grok 4.5▾xAI
156.0
170Jul '26
69Qwen3.8-Flashlab-reported onlyAlibaba
155.8
11Aug '26
70DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731▾DeepSeek
155.7
166Jul '26
71Mistral Large 4Mistral
155.7
114Oct '26
72Gemini 3.6 Flash▾Google
155.6
155Jul '26
73Seed 2.1 ProByteDance
155.6
32Jun '26
74Gemini 3.5 Flash▾Google
155.4
205May '26
75Claude Opus 4.6▾Anthropic
155.4
89Feb '26
76GPT-5.3 Codex▾OpenAI
155.2
62Feb '26
77Agnes 2.5 Pro Betathin evidenceAgnes AI
154.9
5—
78GLM-5.2▾Zhipu AI
154.7
169Jun '26
79Claude Sonnet 4.6▾Anthropic
154.7
165Feb '26
80Qwen3.8 27B▾Alibaba
154.2
153Aug '26
81Mercury 3Inception
153.8
72Oct '26
82Composer 2.5Cursor (Anysphere)
153.8
10—
83Qwen3.7 MaxAlibaba
153.6
142May '26
84Gemini 3 Flash Previewpreview▾Google
153.4
34Dec '25
85K2 Horizon 375B-A23BMBZUAI
153.3
13Sep '26
86Qwen3.8-Flash-NextAlibaba
153.2
20Aug '26
87DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423▾DeepSeek
153.0
30Apr '26
88Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle
152.9
199Feb '26
89Claude Opus 4.5▾Anthropic
152.9
88Nov '25
90Apodex 1.1thin evidenceApodex
152.8
5Aug '26
91GPT-5.2 Codex▾OpenAI
152.7
23—
92DeepSeek V4 Pro▾DeepSeek
152.6
195Apr '26
93MiniMax-M3MiniMax
152.6
192Jun '26
94Gemini 3 Pro Previewpreview▾Google
152.5
41Nov '25
95Kimi K2.7 CodeMoonshot AI
152.4
59Jun '26
96Nex-N2.5-minilab-reported onlythin evidenceNex-AGI
152.1
8Sep '26
97GPT-5.4 nano▾OpenAI
152.0
210Mar '26
98Ling 3.0 Flash VLthin evidenceAnt Group
151.8
5—
99GPT-5.1▾OpenAI
151.8
101Nov '25
100Qwen3.6 Max PreviewpreviewAlibaba
151.7
19—

We grade the labs' own numbers, too

Median gap between what a lab reports for its models and what independent evaluators measure on the same benchmarks, in points. Positive means the lab's own numbers run hot.

Like-for-like score pairs only. Labs with at least 6 comparable pairs.
Full benchmark-inflation report →

Capability is getting cheaper

SCI against the cost of running one full evaluation suite (Artificial Analysis, log scale). Down and to the right is the efficient frontier.

Models with a matched Artificial Analysis cost run. Labels mark the efficient frontier.

How the index is built

01 · COLLECT
Every score, with receipts

Daily collection from 40+ sources: public leaderboards, independent evaluators, lab announcements and system cards. Every score keeps its source, date, and eval conditions.

02 · RECONCILE
Same model, same name

The same model ships under dozens of names and configurations. A canonical registry resolves them, so evidence lands on the right model instead of fragmenting.

03 · FIT
One ruler for all of it

A statistical model of test difficulty places every model and every benchmark on one scale: the same approach Epoch AI uses for its capabilities index, fitted over 600+ benchmarks to their ~40.

The fit treats each benchmark like an exam question: hard exams that few models pass say more than saturated ones, and a model's score is the capability level that best explains all of its results at once. Multiple-choice benchmarks are corrected for their guess-rate floor before fitting, so a 25%-chance test and an open-ended one count fairly.

Trust is the design constraint. A lab's own published number enters the fit at one-third the weight of an independent measurement. Models seen only on easy, saturated benchmarks are held out of the ranking rather than flattered by it, and models with fewer than five hard-benchmark results are hidden by default. The benchmark-inflation report is the same machinery pointed at the labs themselves.

The method is Epoch AI's original 2025 one. Their Epoch Capabilities Index (ECI) introduced this least-squares fit in A Rosetta Stone for AI Benchmarks (Epoch has since moved ECI to a Bayesian fit), and we anchor to the same two points (Claude 3.5 Sonnet = 130, GPT-5 (high) = 150) so an SCI reads in ECI units. Where the two indices overlap, they agree closely.

What SCI adds is coverage and skepticism: Epoch fits roughly 40 benchmarks; we fit 600+ across 1,200+ tracked models, fold in sources Epoch doesn't ingest, weight independent evidence over self-reported, and refresh the fit daily when its quality gates pass. SCI is Synopticon's own independent fit — not Epoch's index, and not affiliated with Epoch AI.

The fine print

What SCI is not. It is not a product review. It measures benchmark capability, not latency, price, context handling, or how a model feels in daily use. A single number also hides real specialization: a model can be frontier at code and mediocre at vision.

Preview models. Rows marked preview are vendor-designated preview or pre-release SKUs. Their scores come from published evaluations of that SKU and may not match the shipping product. A pre-release SKU whose released version is also ranked is folded into that row.

New models. Rows marked new were added to the registry automatically, by fixed intake rules, when a new model appeared in several independent sources. They are reviewed for at least 14 days before they count as approved (longer while a check still flags them), and are removed if the review finds them wrong. The mark sits on the configuration whose score the row shows.

Headline score. A model's row shows its highest-scoring configuration among those with 10 or more hard-benchmark results. A configuration with fewer is still listed when you open the row, but it does not set the headline: a score resting on a handful of benchmarks can swing by several places when one of them changes. A model with no configuration that well measured shows its best one.

Effort settings. A result measured at a stated reasoning effort counts toward that effort's configuration, whoever reported it. A lab's launch numbers at maximum effort sit beside independent runs at maximum effort, not with the model's default-effort results.

Evidence badges. lab-reported only means every result behind a row's headline score comes from the model's developer; thin evidence means that score rests on fewer than ten hard-benchmark results, because no configuration of the model has ten. Neither changes the ranking; such scores tend to move once independent evaluations arrive.

Uncertainty. Each daily refresh publishes point estimates; bootstrapped confidence intervals are computed on periodic manual runs. The evidence count on each row is the honest trust signal; treat thin rows as provisional.

Cite this

Synopticon Research (2026). Synopticon Capability Index (SCI) leaderboard, as of November 14, 2026. https://synopticonresearch.com/leaderboard/

Refreshed when the quality gates pass; the as-of date pins the snapshot you saw. The underlying rows are in leaderboard-data.json.