Introducing Agent Arena: real-world agentic evals at scale.

How do you evaluate agents doing actual work? We measure millions of live sessions where real users accomplish real tasks.

On Arena, models now get web search, filesystem, and terminal tools to complete complex workflows: writing code, creating slide deck, researching the web, building apps, and analyzing documents.

Every session produces rich signals. Users iterate with the agent turn-by-turn: approving, editing, correcting, praise or expressing frustration. The environment gives feedback too: shell errors, tool failures, recovery attempts, and more.

Our leaderboard measures each model's agentic performance using causal inference across five signals: task success, steerability, error recovery, user praise vs. complaint, and tool hallucination.

This leaderboard snapshot is built from 300K+ tasks, 2M+ tool calls, and 40M lines of code by agents.

Top labs in Agent Arena: - #1 @OpenAI: GPT-5.5 (High) - #2 @AnthropicAI: Claude-Opus-4.7 (Thinking) - #3 @Zai_org: GLM-5.1 - #4 @GoogleDeepMind: Gemini-3.1-Pro - #5 @Kimi_Moonshot: Kimi-K2.6

More analysis in the thread, with the full technical blog below.

Arena just released a real-world agent leaderboard that ranks AI models by how well they complete actual user jobs, not isolated benchmark questions.

The system tracks agents using web search, files, and terminal tools while people ask them to write code, build apps, research topics, create documents, and analyze files.

The problem with almost all traditional AI benchmarks is that they test clean tasks, while agents now handle messy work like coding, research, documents, web browsing, files, and terminal commands.

Agent Arena tries to measure agents inside real work sessions, where users correct them, approve results, complain, download files, and expose tool failures as the task unfolds.

Its core idea is to treat each model choice like a test condition, then estimate how much that model improves task outcomes compared with a baseline.

The leaderboard combines 5 signals: confirmed task success, praise versus complaint, ability to follow corrections, recovery from terminal errors, and whether the agent invents tools that do not exist.

The data is large enough to show real behavior patterns, with 300K+ tasks, 2M+ tool calls, and 40M lines of code produced by agents.

The score combines task success, steerability, bash recovery, praise vs. complaint, and tool hallucination, which means the model is judged by whether it finishes, recovers, accepts correction, and avoids fake tool calls.

GPT-5.5 High leads with +10.7% net improvement, followed by Claude Opus 4.7 Thinking at +9.5% and GPT-5.4 High at +8.9%.

The most useful detail is that agents fail like workers under pressure: they can leave one part incomplete, claim the job is done, or sound confident while backing down after correction.

Arena’s strongest contribution is treating agents as working systems, where model choice, tool use, recovery behavior, and user satisfaction all count together.

Arena just released a real-world agent leaderboard that ranks AI models by how well they complete actual user jobs, not isolated benchmark questions.

The system tracks agents using web search, files, and terminal tools while people ask them to write code, build apps, research topics, create documents, and analyze files.

The problem with almost all traditional AI benchmarks is that they test clean tasks, while agents now handle messy work like coding, research, documents, web browsing, files, and terminal commands.

Agent Arena tries to measure agents inside real work sessions, where users correct them, approve results, complain, download files, and expose tool failures as the task unfolds.

Its core idea is to treat each model choice like a test condition, then estimate how much that model improves task outcomes compared with a baseline.

The leaderboard combines 5 signals: confirmed task success, praise versus complaint, ability to follow corrections, recovery from terminal errors, and whether the agent invents tools that do not exist.

The data is large enough to show real behavior patterns, with 300K+ tasks, 2M+ tool calls, and 40M lines of code produced by agents.

The score combines task success, steerability, bash recovery, praise vs. complaint, and tool hallucination, which means the model is judged by whether it finishes, recovers, accepts correction, and avoids fake tool calls.

GPT-5.5 High leads with +10.7% net improvement, followed by Claude Opus 4.7 Thinking at +9.5% and GPT-5.4 High at +8.9%.

The most useful detail is that agents fail like workers under pressure: they can leave one part incomplete, claim the job is done, or sound confident while backing down after correction.

Arena’s strongest contribution is treating agents as working systems, where model choice, tool use, recovery behavior, and user satisfaction all count together.