Citation and evidence

Best AI Models for Reasoning and Math

Report a problem with this article

Edit article
More

Use this article

Raw MarkdownExplore connections

Improve this page

Revision historyDiscuss this article

Topics

Large Language ModelsModel EvaluationReasoning Models

Cite this article

As of July 2026, the strongest general reasoning models are Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Fable 5, OpenAI's GPT-5.5, and Google's Gemini 3.1 Pro and Gemini 3 Pro in its Deep Think mode, which trade the top spot depending on the task [1][2][3]. Claude Fable 5 leads the composite Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and posts the highest Humanity's Last Exam score; GPT-5.5 and Qwen3-Max-Thinking report perfect AIME math results; and on the ARC Prize Foundation's leaderboard (checked October 2026) Claude Fable 5 has the highest ARC-AGI-2 abstract-reasoning score of the models compared here, with GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3 Deep Think close behind [2][4][5][6][24]. For open weights, GLM-5.2 and DeepSeek V4 (V4-Pro) are the reasoning leaders [7][8]. Because AIME and MATH-500 are now saturated, the benchmarks that still separate the frontier are GPQA Diamond, Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), and ARC-AGI-2.

This page ranks models by measured reasoning and math performance. For how these "thinking" models actually work (chain-of-thought, test-time compute, verifier training), see the reasoning model concept page.

The reasoning leaderboard at a glance

Last verified: July 2026. AIME = AIME 2025, pass@1, no tools, unless marked with a dagger for AIME 2026 or "wt" for with tools. GPQA Diamond, HLE and ARC-AGI-2 are percentages. MATH-500 is saturated and has been dropped from 2026 launch reports (shown as n/r). ARC-AGI-2 values are the ARC Prize Foundation's semi-private scores as listed on its leaderboard on 27 October 2026, at the highest reasoning setting shown for each model. HLE is the no-tools score. "n/r" means not reported by a source we could verify (never a zero).

ModelDeveloperAIMEGPQA DiamondMATH-500ARC-AGI-2HLEAccess
Claude Fable 5Anthropicn/r~94 (sat.)n/r89.253.0Proprietary
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic98.393.6n/r72.149.8Proprietary
GPT-5.5OpenAI10093.5n/r85.041.4Proprietary
Claude Opus 4.7Anthropicn/r94.2n/r75.846.9Proprietary
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMindn/r94.3n/r77.144.4Proprietary
Gemini 3 Pro (Deep Think)Google DeepMindn/r93.8n/r84.648.4Proprietary
Gemini 3 Pro (base)Google DeepMind9591.9n/r31.137.5Proprietary
GLM-5.2Z.ai99.2†91.2n/r22.840.5Open (MIT)
Qwen3.7-MaxAlibaban/r92.4n/rn/r41.4Proprietary
Kimi K2.6Moonshot AI96.4†90.5n/rn/r34.7Open (Mod. MIT)
DeepSeek V4-ProDeepSeekn/r90.1n/rn/r37.7Open (MIT)
Grok 4.3xAIn/r90.1n/rn/r35.0Proprietary
Qwen3-Max-ThinkingAlibaba100 wt87.4n/rn/r30.2Proprietary
MiniMax M2MiniMax7878n/rn/r12.5Open (Mod. MIT)

Expanded article table

Sources: AA Intelligence Index and independent evals [1][2][9]; Anthropic system cards for Opus 4.8/4.7 [3][10]; OpenAI and Vellum transcription for GPT-5.5 [5][11]; Google model cards for the Gemini line [6][12][13]; DeepSeek, Moonshot, Z.ai, Qwen, MiniMax model cards [7][8][14][15][16]; ARC Prize verified scores [4][17].

Which AI model is best for reasoning right now?

On the composite Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (updated July 7, 2026), the order at the top is Claude Fable 5 first, Claude Opus 4.8 second, and GPT-5.5 third, with Anthropic holding two of the top three slots [1][2]. Claude Fable 5, the general-availability edition of Anthropic's "Mythos" class released on June 9, 2026, launched at number one and is the first model to clear 53% on Humanity's Last Exam, more than seven points ahead of the next model [2]. Opus 4.8 (released May 28, 2026) is the strongest widely deployed flagship, and GPT-5.5 (April 2026) is OpenAI's leading reasoning model and the top scorer on the agentic side of the index [1][5].

No single model wins every reasoning task, so the honest answer is a per-use-case ranking.

Which model is best for the hardest math?

AIME 2025 is effectively solved: GPT-5.5, GPT-5.2, Qwen3-Max-Thinking and (with tools) Grok 4 and Kimi K2 Thinking all report 100%, and most 2026 launches have simply stopped listing it [5][14][18][19]. The newest open models report AIME 2026 instead, where GLM-5.2 scores 99.2% and Kimi K2.6 scores 96.4%, again near the ceiling [7][8]. Because the exam is saturated, it no longer separates the leaders.

For math that still discriminates, the differentiators are harder olympiad sets and FrontierMath. GPT-5.5 leads here, reporting roughly 51.7% on FrontierMath tiers 1 to 3 and 35.4% on the research-level tier 4, and Gemini 3 Pro reaches 100% on AIME 2025 only when allowed to run code [5][12]. The verdict: for the hardest math, GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3 Pro in Deep Think mode are the strongest, with Qwen3-Max-Thinking the best proprietary Chinese option and GLM-5.2 the best open-weight math model.

Which model is best for graduate-level science?

Two benchmarks matter here: GPQA Diamond (Google-proof graduate science multiple choice) and HLE (thousands of expert-written frontier questions across dozens of fields). GPQA Diamond is now near saturation: the frontier clusters between 91% and 95%, well above the roughly 70% scored by human PhDs in their own field [17][20]. The current GPQA Diamond leaders are Gemini 3.1 Pro at 94.3%, Claude Opus 4.7 at 94.2%, Gemini 3 Deep Think at 93.8%, and Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5 and Grok 4.3 in a tight band near 93.5% [3][5][12][13].

HLE is the tougher, less saturated science and knowledge test, and here Anthropic leads: Claude Fable 5 scores 53.0% and Claude Opus 4.8 scores 49.8% with no tools, ahead of Gemini 3 Deep Think at 48.4% and Gemini 3.1 Pro at 44.4% [2][3][6][13]. On Scale's independent no-tools harness, Gemini 3.1 Pro tops the public board at about 46.4% [9]. With tools enabled, Opus 4.8 rises to 57.9%, the highest verified with-tools result [3]. The verdict: for graduate science, Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Fable 5 lead on HLE, while Gemini 3.1 Pro edges the GPQA Diamond ranking.

Which model is best for abstract and novel reasoning?

ARC-AGI-2 is the benchmark built to resist memorization: novel visual puzzles where humans average around 60% but 2025-era models scored under 20%. Scores on the ARC Prize Foundation's semi-private evaluation rose steeply during 2026. Among the models in the table above, the foundation's leaderboard (checked 27 October 2026) lists Claude Fable 5 at 89.2% at its max setting, GPT-5.5 at 85.0% at xhigh, the February 2026 version of Gemini 3 Deep Think at 84.6%, Gemini 3.1 Pro (preview) at 77.1%, Claude Opus 4.7 at 75.8% at max, and Claude Opus 4.8 at 72.1% at high [24]. Earlier entries were far lower: a preview of Gemini 3 Deep Think scored 45.1%, Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking 37.6%, Gemini 3 Flash 33.6% and Gemini 3 Pro base 31.1%; Grok 4 reached 15.9% and GPT-5 reached 9.9% [4][10][17][24]. A refinement system from Poetiq built on Gemini 3 Pro scored 54%, but it is a scaffolded system rather than a single model [10]. Models released after July 2026 score higher still; GPT-6 Astra, for example, is listed at 95.0% at its max setting [24]. The verdict: among the models compared here, Claude Fable 5 has the highest ARC-AGI-2 score, with GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3 Deep Think close behind.

An important caveat: ARC-AGI-2 scores depend heavily on the reasoning-effort setting. The ARC Prize Foundation lists several settings for most models; Claude Opus 4.7, for example, ranges from 62.1% at low effort to 75.8% at max, and GPT-5.5 from 33.3% at low to 85.0% at xhigh [24]. The 85.0%, 77.1% and 75.8% figures for GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7 are the foundation's own semi-private results, not public-set self-reports [24]. Results on the public evaluation set are a different measurement from semi-private scores [21]. Treat any single "ARC-AGI-2" percentage that does not state its evaluation set and effort setting as unreliable.

Which is the best open-weight reasoning model?

Open weights have closed much of the gap. GLM-5.2 from Z.ai (Zhipu, MIT license, released June 2026) is the highest-scoring open model on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and posts 91.2% GPQA Diamond, 99.2% AIME 2026, and 40.5% HLE (54.7% with tools) [8]. DeepSeek V4-Pro (MIT license, April 2026, a 1.6-trillion-parameter mixture-of-experts model with 49B active and 1M context) is close behind at 90.1% GPQA Diamond and 37.7% HLE, and far cheaper to run [7][22]. Kimi K2.6 from Moonshot AI scores 90.5% GPQA Diamond and a strong 54.0% HLE with tools [14]. The verdict: GLM-5.2 is the best open reasoning model overall, with DeepSeek V4-Pro the best open value and Kimi K2.6 the strongest tool-using open model. Note that Alibaba's Qwen3.7-Max and Qwen3-Max-Thinking are strong reasoners but are proprietary, API-only, and not open weight [15][16].

Which reasoning model is the best value?

Among open models, DeepSeek V4-Pro delivers frontier-adjacent reasoning at about $0.44 per million input and $0.87 per million output tokens, and its smaller V4-Flash sibling runs near $0.14 in and $0.28 out, the cheapest capable reasoner here [7][22]. MiniMax M2 (about $0.30 in, $1.20 out) is another low-cost open option, though its 78% AIME and GPQA place it a tier below [16]. Among proprietary models, Grok 4.3 from xAI is priced aggressively at $1.25 in and $2.50 out while scoring around 90% GPQA Diamond [23]. The verdict: DeepSeek V4-Pro is the best value for top-tier reasoning, and Grok 4.3 is the best-value proprietary option.

How should you read these scores?

Three cautions apply to every number above. First, saturation: AIME 2025 and MATH-500 are essentially solved and have been retired from most 2026 model cards, so a perfect AIME score no longer signals a leader. GPQA Diamond is close behind, with the frontier compressed into a two-point band above human-expert level [17][20]. HLE and ARC-AGI-2 are the remaining benchmarks with real spread. Second, tools versus no tools: with-tools scores (code execution, search) run 5 to 15 points higher than no-tools scores on HLE and AIME, so only compare like with like. Third, self-report versus independent: launch-day figures are provider self-reports; independent trackers such as Artificial Analysis, Scale and Epoch AI often measure a few points lower, and ARC-AGI-2 results on the public evaluation set are not the same measurement as the ARC Prize Foundation's semi-private scores [4][9][20][21]. Scores in this fast-moving field change monthly; this page was verified in July 2026, and its ARC-AGI-2 figures were updated in October 2026.

Continue reading

More to read

Topics:Large Language ModelsModel EvaluationReasoning Models

References

  1. ^1 ^2 ^3 ^4Artificial Analysis, "LLM Leaderboard and Intelligence Index," artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboards/models (accessed July 2026).
  2. ^1 ^2 ^3 ^4 ^5 ^6Artificial Analysis, "Claude Fable 5 tops the Intelligence Index," artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5 and /articles/claude-fable-5-mythos-intelligence-index.
  3. ^1 ^2 ^3 ^4 ^5Anthropic, "Introducing Claude Opus 4.8," anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-8 (May 28, 2026); Claude Opus 4.8 System Card.
  4. ^1 ^2 ^3 ^4ARC Prize Foundation, verified ARC-AGI-2 semi-private results, arcprize.org/leaderboard and x.com/arcprize (Gemini 3 Deep Think 45.14%, Gemini 3 Pro 31.11%, Grok 4 15.9%, GPT-5 9.9%).
  5. ^1 ^2 ^3 ^4 ^5 ^6OpenAI, "Introducing GPT-5.5," openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-5 (April 23, 2026).
  6. ^1 ^2 ^3Google, "Gemini 3 Deep Think," blog.google/products/gemini/gemini-3-deep-think (HLE 41.0% at launch, 48.4% after Feb 2026 update).
  7. ^1 ^2 ^3 ^4 ^5DeepSeek, "DeepSeek V4 Technical Report," arxiv.org/abs/2606.19348 and huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Pro (MIT license).
  8. ^1 ^2 ^3 ^4Z.ai (Zhipu), "GLM-5.2," z.ai/blog/glm-5.2 and huggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-5.2 (MIT license, June 2026).
  9. ^1 ^2 ^3Scale AI, "Humanity's Last Exam leaderboard (SEAL)," labs.scale.com/leaderboard/humanitys_last_exam.
  10. ^1 ^2 ^3ARC Prize Foundation, "ARC Prize 2025 Results and Analysis," arcprize.org/blog/arc-prize-2025-results-analysis (Opus 4.5 Thinking 37.6%, Poetiq system 54%).
  11. ^Vellum, "Everything you need to know about GPT-5.5," vellum.ai/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-gpt-5-5 (transcribes OpenAI launch table).
  12. ^1 ^2 ^3Google DeepMind, "Gemini 3 Pro Model Card," storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/Model-Cards/Gemini-3-Pro-Model-Card.pdf (AIME 95% no tools, GPQA Diamond 91.9%, ARC-AGI-2 31.1% verified, HLE 37.5%).
  13. ^1 ^2 ^3Google, "Gemini 3.1 Pro," blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/gemini-models/gemini-3-1-pro (GPQA Diamond 94.3%, HLE 44.4%, self-reported ARC-AGI-2 77.1%).
  14. ^1 ^2 ^3Moonshot AI, "Kimi K2.6," huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K2.6 (GPQA Diamond 90.5%, AIME 2026 96.4%, HLE 34.7% / 54.0% with tools).
  15. ^1 ^2Qwen (Alibaba), "Qwen3-Max-Thinking," qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3-max-thinking (AIME 2025 100% with tools, GPQA 87.4%).
  16. ^1 ^2 ^3MiniMax, "MiniMax M2," huggingface.co/MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2; Qwen3.7-Max page, artificialanalysis.ai/models/qwen3-7-max.
  17. ^1 ^2 ^3 ^4Epoch AI, "GPQA Diamond benchmark," epoch.ai/benchmarks/gpqa-diamond (human PhD baseline 69.7%; Grok 4 87%).
  18. ^OpenAI, "Introducing GPT-5.2," openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-2 (first 100% AIME 2025, no tools).
  19. ^LM Council, "AI Model Benchmarks (July 2026)," lmcouncil.ai/benchmarks (cross-model AIME and GPQA board; Claude Opus 4.8 AIME 98.3%).
  20. ^1 ^2 ^3Artificial Analysis, "GPQA Diamond and Humanity's Last Exam evaluations," artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/gpqa-diamond and /humanitys-last-exam.
  21. ^1 ^2Imbue, "The evolution of ARC-AGI-2 (public versus semi-private)," imbue.com/blog/2026-02-27-arc-agi-2-evolution.
  22. ^1 ^2DeepSeek, "API pricing," api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing; NIST/CAISI, "Evaluation of DeepSeek V4-Pro," nist.gov/news-events/news/2026/05/caisi-evaluation-deepseek-v4-pro.
  23. ^xAI, "Grok 4.3 model documentation," docs.x.ai/developers/models/grok-4.3 (pricing and release, April 30, 2026).
  24. ^1 ^2 ^3 ^4 ^5 ^6ARC Prize Foundation, "ARC-AGI Leaderboard," arcprize.org/leaderboard, with leaderboard data at arcprize.org/media/data/evaluations.json (ARC-AGI-2 semi-private scores by model and reasoning setting; accessed 27 October 2026).

Improve this article

Add missing citations, update stale details, or write a clearer explanation. Anyone can edit: changes go live when you publish, and every edit is checked by an editor.

5 revisions · v5 · 2,155 words · full history

Fact-checks are independent of edits: a reviewer re-verifies the article against its sources and stamps the date. How we verify

Research and drafting on this wiki are AI-assisted, under named human editorial standards. How AI is used here

Cite this page: AI Wiki. "Best AI Models for Reasoning and Math." aiwiki.ai, updated 27 Oct 2026. CC BY 4.0. https://aiwiki.ai/wiki/best_ai_models_for_reasoning

Edit article