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 11, 2026, Synopticon Research's SCI ranks Claude Fable 5.2 first at 167.5. The top 100 of 352 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▼ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Fable 5.2▾ | Anthropic | 167.5 | 135 | Nov '26 |
| 2 | Claude Mythos 5.2lab-reported only | Anthropic | 166.6 | 14 | Nov '26 |
| 3 | Gemini 4 Carbon▾ | 165.5 | 107 | Oct '26 | |
| 4 | GPT-6 Astra▾ | OpenAI | 165.0 | 360 | Sep '26 |
| 5 | Claude Opus 5.5▾ | Anthropic | 164.9 | 328 | Sep '26 |
| 6 | Claude Mythos Previewpreview | Anthropic | 164.4 | 15 | Apr '26 |
| 7 | GPT-6.1 Terra▾ | OpenAI | 164.1 | 133 | Oct '26 |
| 8 | GPT-6.1 Sol▾ | OpenAI | 164.0 | 263 | Sep '26 |
| 9 | Claude Sonnet 5.5▾ | Anthropic | 163.9 | 280 | Sep '26 |
| 10 | Claude Fable 5.1▾ | Anthropic | 163.2 | 275 | Sep '26 |
| 11 | Claude Mythos 5.1 | Anthropic | 163.1 | 28 | Sep '26 |
| 12 | Gemini 4 Argon▾ | 163.1 | 248 | Oct '26 | |
| 13 | Claude Mythos 5 | Anthropic | 163.0 | 12 | Jun '26 |
| 14 | Claude Fable 5▾ | Anthropic | 162.9 | 244 | Jun '26 |
| 15 | Fugu Ultra v2lab-reported onlythin evidence | Sakana AI | 162.2 | 5 | Sep '26 |
| 16 | GPT-6 Sol▾ | OpenAI | 162.1 | 208 | Sep '26 |
| 17 | GPT-5.5 Prothin evidence▾ | OpenAI | 161.9 | 15 | Apr '26 |
| 18 | Claude Opus 5▾ | Anthropic | 161.9 | 300 | Jul '26 |
| 19 | Kimi K3.1 Pronew▾ | Moonshot AI | 161.8 | 140 | Oct '26 |
| 20 | GPT-5.6 Sol▾ | OpenAI | 161.3 | 295 | Jul '26 |
| 21 | Qwen3.8-Max-0902▾ | Alibaba | 160.8 | 28 | Sep '26 |
| 22 | Muse Wonder Full | Meta | 160.8 | 121 | Oct '26 |
| 23 | Atria Dawn Previewpreviewlab-reported onlythin evidence | Shanghai AI Laboratory | 160.8 | 7 | — |
| 24 | Muse Wonder | Meta | 160.4 | 143 | Oct '26 |
| 25 | GPT-5.6 Terra▾ | OpenAI | 160.1 | 250 | Jul '26 |
| 26 | Muse Wonder 1.0thin evidence | Meta | 160.1 | 5 | Oct '26 |
| 27 | GPT-5.4 Prothin evidence▾ | OpenAI | 159.7 | 14 | Mar '26 |
| 28 | GPT-5.5▾ | OpenAI | 159.7 | 310 | Apr '26 |
| 29 | Claude Haiku 5.5▾ | Anthropic | 159.4 | 197 | Oct '26 |
| 30 | Gemini 3.8 Flash▾ | 158.8 | 274 | Sep '26 | |
| 31 | Claude Opus 4.8▾ | Anthropic | 158.7 | 284 | May '26 |
| 32 | GPT-5.4▾ | OpenAI | 158.3 | 193 | Mar '26 |
| 33 | Grok 4.7▾ | xAI | 158.3 | 244 | Sep '26 |
| 34 | Nex-N2.5lab-reported onlythin evidence | Nex-AGI | 158.2 | 7 | Sep '26 |
| 35 | GLM-5.3▾ | Zhipu AI | 158.1 | 236 | Aug '26 |
| 36 | Qwen3.8 Max▾ | Alibaba | 158.0 | 192 | Aug '26 |
| 37 | GPT-5.2 Prothin evidence▾ | OpenAI | 158.0 | 10 | Dec '25 |
| 38 | Muse Spark 1.3▾ | Meta | 157.9 | 177 | Sep '26 |
| 39 | Gemini 3.7 Flash▾ | 157.9 | 182 | Aug '26 | |
| 40 | Grok 4.6▾ | xAI | 157.9 | 214 | Aug '26 |
| 41 | Kimi K3▾ | Moonshot AI | 157.8 | 303 | Jul '26 |
| 42 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | DeepSeek | 157.8 | 116 | Oct '26 |
| 43 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash▾ | DeepSeek | 157.8 | 223 | Sep '26 |
| 44 | IQuest-Q1lab-reported onlythin evidence | IQuest | 157.8 | 7 | Sep '26 |
| 45 | GPT-5.6 Luna▾ | OpenAI | 157.6 | 258 | Jul '26 |
| 46 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Xiaomi | 157.5 | 188 | Sep '26 |
| 47 | GPT-6 Luna▾ | OpenAI | 157.5 | 259 | Sep '26 |
| 48 | GPT-5.6 Sol Pro▾ | OpenAI | 157.4 | 16 | — |
| 49 | Inkling 2 Small | Thinking Machines | 157.2 | 110 | Nov '26 |
| 50 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Alibaba | 157.1 | 10 | Aug '26 |
| 51 | Claude Opus 4.7▾ | Anthropic | 157.1 | 234 | Apr '26 |
| 52 | Gemini 3.1 Pro Previewpreview | 156.9 | 22 | — | |
| 53 | Step 5 Previewpreview | StepFun | 156.8 | 107 | — |
| 54 | GLM-5.3-Flash | Zhipu AI | 156.7 | 195 | Aug '26 |
| 55 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Xiaomi | 156.7 | 178 | Sep '26 |
| 56 | Claude Sonnet 5▾ | Anthropic | 156.6 | 235 | Jun '26 |
| 57 | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813▾ | DeepSeek | 156.6 | 208 | Aug '26 |
| 58 | Muse Spark 1.1▾ | Meta | 156.4 | 130 | Jul '26 |
| 59 | Muse Spark Open | Meta | 156.3 | 95 | Oct '26 |
| 60 | MiniMax-M3.1-Flash | MiniMax | 156.3 | 91 | Oct '26 |
| 61 | Seed 2.1 Turbo | ByteDance | 156.3 | 35 | Jun '26 |
| 62 | Hy4 previewpreview | Tencent | 156.3 | 202 | Aug '26 |
| 63 | Nex-N2.5-Prolab-reported onlythin evidence | Nex-AGI | 156.3 | 9 | Sep '26 |
| 64 | GPT-5.2▾ | OpenAI | 156.2 | 145 | Dec '25 |
| 65 | DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Expthin evidence▾ | DeepSeek | 156.2 | 15 | Aug '26 |
| 66 | Muse Spark 1.2▾ | Meta | 156.2 | 142 | Aug '26 |
| 67 | Grok 4.5▾ | xAI | 156.0 | 170 | Jul '26 |
| 68 | Qwen3.8-Flashlab-reported only | Alibaba | 155.8 | 12 | Aug '26 |
| 69 | Mistral Large 4 | Mistral | 155.8 | 114 | Oct '26 |
| 70 | DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731▾ | DeepSeek | 155.7 | 167 | Jul '26 |
| 71 | Gemini 3.6 Flash▾ | 155.6 | 155 | Jul '26 | |
| 72 | Seed 2.1 Pro | ByteDance | 155.6 | 32 | Jun '26 |
| 73 | Gemini 3.5 Flash▾ | 155.5 | 203 | May '26 | |
| 74 | Claude Opus 4.6▾ | Anthropic | 155.4 | 89 | Feb '26 |
| 75 | GPT-5.3 Codex▾ | OpenAI | 155.2 | 62 | Feb '26 |
| 76 | Agnes 2.5 Pro Betathin evidence | Agnes AI | 154.9 | 5 | — |
| 77 | GLM-5.2▾ | Zhipu AI | 154.9 | 171 | Jun '26 |
| 78 | Claude Sonnet 4.6▾ | Anthropic | 154.7 | 166 | Feb '26 |
| 79 | Qwen3.8 27B▾ | Alibaba | 154.3 | 153 | Aug '26 |
| 80 | Mercury 3 | Inception | 153.8 | 72 | Oct '26 |
| 81 | Composer 2.5 | Cursor (Anysphere) | 153.8 | 10 | — |
| 82 | Qwen3.7 Max | Alibaba | 153.6 | 143 | May '26 |
| 83 | Gemini 3 Flash Previewpreview▾ | 153.4 | 34 | Dec '25 | |
| 84 | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Alibaba | 153.4 | 21 | Aug '26 |
| 85 | K2 Horizon 375B-A23B | MBZUAI | 153.3 | 14 | Sep '26 |
| 86 | DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423▾ | DeepSeek | 153.0 | 30 | Apr '26 |
| 87 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | 153.0 | 198 | Feb '26 | |
| 88 | Claude Opus 4.5▾ | Anthropic | 152.9 | 88 | Nov '25 |
| 89 | Apodex 1.1thin evidence | Apodex | 152.8 | 5 | Aug '26 |
| 90 | GPT-5.2 Codex▾ | OpenAI | 152.7 | 23 | — |
| 91 | MiniMax-M3 | MiniMax | 152.7 | 192 | Jun '26 |
| 92 | DeepSeek V4 Pro▾ | DeepSeek | 152.6 | 196 | Apr '26 |
| 93 | Gemini 3 Pro Previewpreview▾ | 152.5 | 41 | Nov '25 | |
| 94 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Moonshot AI | 152.5 | 59 | Jun '26 |
| 95 | Nex-N2.5-minilab-reported onlythin evidence | Nex-AGI | 152.1 | 9 | Sep '26 |
| 96 | GPT-5.4 nano▾ | OpenAI | 152.1 | 211 | Mar '26 |
| 97 | GPT-5.1▾ | OpenAI | 151.9 | 101 | Nov '25 |
| 98 | Ling 3.0 Flash VLthin evidence | Ant Group | 151.9 | 5 | — |
| 99 | Qwen3.6 Max Previewpreview | Alibaba | 151.8 | 19 | — |
| 100 | Hy3 (July 2026) | Tencent | 151.6 | 36 | Jul '26 |
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.
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.
How the index is built
Daily collection from 40+ sources: public leaderboards, independent evaluators, lab announcements and system cards. Every score keeps its source, date, and eval conditions.
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.
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 11, 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.