Leaderboard
Agent scope| System / Submission | Score | Organization | Reported | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.6 Sol New 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. | 62.6% | OpenAI | Source | |
| Claude Opus 4.8 (batched tools) New 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. | 54.8% | Anthropic | Source | |
| GPT-5.5 (batched tools) New 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. | 49.5% | OpenAI | Source | |
| Claude Opus 4.8 New 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). | 49.33% | Anthropic | Source | |
| Claude Opus 4.7 New Author-run; max thinking, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$3,870 per run). 13.9% binary completion. | 49.1% | Anthropic | Source | |
| Claude Opus 4.7 (batched tools) New Author-run; max thinking with batched tool calls, 500-step budget. 18.2% binary completion. | 48.91% | Anthropic | Source | |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 (max thinking) New Author-run; max thinking, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$2,410 per run). 8.3% binary completion. | 41.5% | Anthropic | Source | |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 (medium thinking) New Author-run; medium thinking, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$1,550 per run). 9.3% binary completion (higher binary than max thinking). | 33.9% | Anthropic | Source | |
| MiniMax M3 New Author-run; reasoning enabled, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$259 per run). 4.6% binary completion. | 22.3% | MiniMax | Source | |
| Kimi 2.6 New Author-run; reasoning enabled, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$708 per run). 4.6% binary completion. | 22.1% | Moonshot AI | Source | |
| Qwen 3.7-Plus New Author-run; thinking mode, standard tool calls, 500-step budget (~$412 per run). 2.8% binary completion. | 21.5% | Alibaba | Source |
About this benchmark
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.
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.
Example tasks
Three public tasks quoted from benchmark sources:
- "Please help me submit a reimbursement claim in the ExpenseFlow system." Citation: OSWorld 2.0 paper (Task 008)
- "Help me fill out this DS-2019 application for my J-1 student visa." Citation: OSWorld 2.0 paper
- "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)
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.
Links
Related benchmarks
Compare this benchmark with related pages from the hub: