# OSWorld 2.0

OSWorld 2.0 leaderboard for computer-use agents on 108 long-horizon real-world desktop workflows that take human users a median of about 1.6 hours.

Canonical URL: https://leaderboard.steel.dev/leaderboards/osworld-2/
Category: Computer use
Scope: agent
Last updated: 2026-07-10

About:
- OSWorld 2.0 evaluates computer-use agents on 108 long-horizon, end-to-end desktop workflows spanning everyday and professional tasks across self-hosted websites, office suites, files, and multi-application pipelines.
- It is far harder than OSWorld 1.0: tasks take human users a median of about 1.6 hours, require an average of roughly 318 tool calls (vs about 30 in OSWorld 1.0), and 69.6% run longer than an hour, stressing cross-source reasoning, implicit-state inference, streaming interaction, and visual-spatial precision.
- Scores here are not comparable to the OSWorld (1.0/Verified) leaderboard: the task set, step budgets, and metrics all differ, so use this page only for within-benchmark ranking.

Methodology:
- Tasks run in real VM desktop environments with execution-based validators that check final state against many fine-grained checkpoints (averaging 27.25 per task).
- OSWorld 2.0 scores two ways: binary completion (all checkpoints passed) and a partial score (fraction of checkpoints reached). We rank on the partial score — it differentiates systems far better than the low binary rates and matches how the GPT-5.6 result is reported — with each row's binary completion noted. Tracked scores use the default 500-step budget.
- Most rows are author-run by the benchmark team on the official OSWorld 2.0 harness; the GPT-5.6 Sol row is OpenAI self-reported at launch. Reasoning effort, tool-call mode, and step budget are reported per row and materially affect scores.
- We track public results with source URLs and note that no independent third-party reproduction exists yet.

Example evaluation tasks:
- "Please help me submit a reimbursement claim in the ExpenseFlow system." (citation: OSWorld 2.0 paper (Task 008), https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.29537)
- "Help me fill out this DS-2019 application for my J-1 student visa." (citation: OSWorld 2.0 paper, https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.29537)
- "Go to the TravelHub booking page for Le Meurice and select the Deluxe Suite, stopping before the user enters personal information." (citation: OSWorld 2.0 paper (Task 052), https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.29537)

Interpretation notes:
- Rows are self-reported (benchmark team or OpenAI); independent third-party results are not yet available, and GPT-5.6 Sol's binary completion is unpublished.
- Binary completion is deliberately low (best about 20.6%, Claude Opus 4.8); we rank on partial score instead, so a row's partial score is not comparable to OSWorld 1.0/Verified pass rates.

Canonical links:
- OSWorld 2.0 project: https://osworld-v2.xlang.ai/
- OSWorld 2.0 paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.29537
- OSWorld 2.0 repository: https://github.com/xlang-ai/OSWorld-V2
- OSWorld 2.0 dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/xlangai/osworld_v2_tasks

| Rank | System | Score | Organization | Notes | Source | Repo |
|------|--------|-------|--------------|-------|--------|------|
| 1 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 62.6% | OpenAI | OpenAI self-reported at the GPT-5.6 launch; single-agent Sol (ultra multi-agent not reported on OSWorld 2.0). Partial score; binary completion not published. New state of the art. | https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-6/ | — |
| 2 | Claude Opus 4.8 (batched tools) | 54.8% | Anthropic | Author-run on the official OSWorld 2.0 harness (108 long-horizon tasks); max thinking with batched tool calls, 500-step budget. 20.6% binary completion. | https://osworld-v2.xlang.ai/ | — |
| 3 | GPT-5.5 (batched tools) | 49.5% | OpenAI | Author-run; xhigh reasoning with batched tool calls, 500-step budget (~$2,750 per run). 13.0% binary completion, flat across 150/300/500 steps. | https://osworld-v2.xlang.ai/ | — |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 49.33% | Anthropic | Author-run; max thinking, standard tool calls, 500-step budget. 18.52% binary completion. Batched tool calls lift the same model to 54.8% partial (rank 2). | https://osworld-v2.xlang.ai/ | — |
| 5 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 49.1% | Anthropic | Author-run; max thinking, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$3,870 per run). 13.9% binary completion. | https://osworld-v2.xlang.ai/ | — |
| 6 | Claude Opus 4.7 (batched tools) | 48.91% | Anthropic | Author-run; max thinking with batched tool calls, 500-step budget. 18.2% binary completion. | https://osworld-v2.xlang.ai/ | — |
| 7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 (max thinking) | 41.5% | Anthropic | Author-run; max thinking, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$2,410 per run). 8.3% binary completion. | https://osworld-v2.xlang.ai/ | — |
| 8 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 (medium thinking) | 33.9% | Anthropic | Author-run; medium thinking, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$1,550 per run). 9.3% binary completion (higher binary than max thinking). | https://osworld-v2.xlang.ai/ | — |
| 9 | MiniMax M3 | 22.3% | MiniMax | Author-run; reasoning enabled, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$259 per run). 4.6% binary completion. | https://osworld-v2.xlang.ai/ | — |
| 10 | Kimi 2.6 | 22.1% | Moonshot AI | Author-run; reasoning enabled, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$708 per run). 4.6% binary completion. | https://osworld-v2.xlang.ai/ | — |
| 11 | Qwen 3.7-Plus | 21.5% | Alibaba | Author-run; thinking mode, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$412 per run). 2.8% binary completion. | https://osworld-v2.xlang.ai/ | — |

FAQ:
- Q: Which system is currently best on OSWorld 2.0?
  A: GPT-5.6 Sol is the system/agent setup currently leading with a tracked score of 62.6%. This ranking reflects submitted system setups (model plus tools and policy), not just a base model. Based on our latest tracked results, last updated Jul 10, 2026.
- Q: What should I read into a OSWorld 2.0 score?
  A: OSWorld 2.0 scores are most useful for within-benchmark ranking. Read the Notes column to understand setup context, and use the methodology section before making procurement or architecture decisions.
- Q: Are these independently verified?
  A: Not always. Some rows are independently benchmarked and some are team-reported. Use each source link and notes field to verify evidence level before drawing strong conclusions.