Codesota · LLM · Power RankingThe condensed answer · who’s actually best on averageIssue: May 30, 2026
§ 00 · Premise

Which LLM is best on average?

A single high score is easy to game — train on the test set, hand-tune one case, publish a paper. Average performance across many benchmarks is harder to fake.

We rank every LLM that placed on at least 2 of 8 public benchmarks. Then — where we've verified the model on our own held-out set — we show our number next to the public consensus.

§ 01
Per-benchmark percentile

Within each benchmark we rank every model that has a score, then map the rank to a 0–100 percentile (top = 100). This neutralises that some metrics are lower-better while others are higher-better — both end up on the same 0–100 axis.

§ 02
Average across coverage

Power score is the unweighted mean of a model's percentiles across the benchmarks where it has a score. We require a minimum of 2 benchmarks — one strong showing isn't enough.

§ 03
Our own column, when we have one

Where CodeSOTA has run its own eval (currently 0 of 19 ranked models), the right-most column shows that score. When the public consensus and our number disagree, that disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.

§ 01 · Ranking

The Power Ranking, 19 models.

Sorted by average percentile across the 8 axes. Coverage column is load-bearing — a model on top with 2/8 is making a narrower claim than one on top with most axes.

Pills below each model show per-benchmark percentile. Copper = top quartile (≥75), grey = middle, faded = bottom quartile.

#ModelPowerCoverageCodeSOTA verifiedPer-benchmark percentile
01o396.33 / 8not yetMMLU 100GPQA 100MATH 89
02o185.73 / 8not yetMMLU 94GPQA 88MATH 75
03o4-mini84.03 / 8not yetMMLU 72GPQA 94MATH 86
04GPT-4.5 Preview79.02 / 8not yetMMLU 89GPQA 69
05o1-preview78.85 / 8not yetMMLU 83GPQA 75MATH 36AIME 100GSM8K 100
06GPT-4.170.52 / 8not yetMMLU 78GPQA 63
07o3-mini65.33 / 8not yetMMLU 22GPQA 81MATH 93
08Claude 3.5 Sonnet54.07 / 8not yetMMLU 56GPQA 50MATH 14GSM8K 75ARC-C 100HellaSwag 33Winogrande 50
09DeepSeek V353.52 / 8not yetMMLU 61MATH 46
10Llama 3.1 405B52.52 / 8not yetMMLU 67GPQA 38
11GPT-4o48.88 / 8not yetMMLU 44GPQA 25MATH 29AIME 0GSM8K 25ARC-C 67HellaSwag 100Winogrande 100
12Grok 247.02 / 8not yetMMLU 50GPQA 44
13o1-mini38.73 / 8not yetMMLU 17GPQA 56MATH 43
14Claude 3 Opus35.02 / 8not yetMMLU 39GPQA 31
15GPT-4 Turbo26.02 / 8not yetMMLU 33GPQA 19
16Gemini 1.5 Pro24.26 / 8not yetMMLU 28GPQA 13MATH 4GSM8K 0ARC-C 33HellaSwag 67
17Llama 3 70B10.05 / 8not yetMMLU 0GSM8K 50ARC-C 0HellaSwag 0Winogrande 0
18Llama 3.1 70B8.52 / 8not yetMMLU 11GPQA 6
19GPT-4o Mini5.73 / 8not yetMMLU 6GPQA 0MATH 11
Tab 1 · Power score = mean of per-benchmark percentiles. Coverage gate ≥ 2. CodeSOTA-verified column shows our own numbers when we have run the model in-house.
§ 02 · Why a second column

Public benchmarks aren’t enough.

Three problems compound. One: popular benchmarks are easy to overfit — six months after a paper ships, the test set is in the next training run. Two: they miss the cases that actually pay rent — your data, your edge cases, your failure modes. Three: a vendor’s self-reported score is a marketing artefact until somebody else runs the same eval.

Our verified column closes the third gap. The first two we close with a hold-out architecture: methodology and sample items are public, the actual test set rotates quarterly and stays private — so even when our questions eventually leak into a training corpus, they’re no longer the questions we’re using.

Currently 0 of 19 models on this page have a CodeSOTA-verified score. Expanding that coverage is the work.

§ 03 · Request

Want a model verified against your data?

If you're choosing an LLM for production and a model on this list doesn't have a CodeSOTA-verified score, tell us. We run a private, hold-out evaluation on the tasks you actually care about — so you're not picking on a contaminated public number.