agents benchmark
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard V4 (BFCL-V4) evaluates LLMs on their ability to accurately call functions and APIs, including simple, multiple, parallel, and nested function calls across diverse programming scenarios.
Updated Aug 7, 2026
Sorted by the source-provided rank. Higher score is better according to the registry.
| 1 | AC | 75.0% | 100.0% | 13 | C | |
| 2 | AC | 72.9% | 91.7% | 13 | C | |
| 3 | AC | 72.9% | 83.3% | 13 | C | |
| 4 | AC | 72.2% | 75.0% | 13 | C | |
| 5 | AC | 68.5% | 66.7% | 13 | C | |
| 6 | AC | 67.3% | 58.3% | 13 | C | |
| 7 | AC | 66.1% | 50.0% | 13 | C | |
| 8 | AM | 61.6% | 41.7% | 13 | C | |
| 9 | AM | 60.3% | 33.3% | 13 | C | |
| 10 | AM | 58.3% | 25.0% | 13 | C | |
| 11 | AC | 50.3% | 16.7% | 13 | C | |
| 12 | AC | 43.6% | 8.3% | 13 | C | |
| 13 | AC | 25.3% | 0.0% | 13 | C |
Top published rows on the benchmark's original scale.
The top published results on this benchmark's own scale.
Definition and scoring fields from the benchmark registry.
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard V4 (BFCL-V4) evaluates LLMs on their ability to accurately call functions and APIs, including simple, multiple, parallel, and nested function calls across diverse programming scenarios.
Scores are shown in ratio. The current registry marks this benchmark as not independently verified with evidence level B.
Source-native results are preserved. Eligibility for the overall LLMBoard score is a separate policy decision.
Common questions about BFCL-V4.
Qwen3.7 Max is currently ranked first with 75.0%.
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard V4 (BFCL-V4) evaluates LLMs on their ability to accurately call functions and APIs, including simple, multiple, parallel, and nested function calls across diverse programming scenarios.
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
13 unique published model results are currently shown.
This benchmark is preserved as source-native evidence but is not eligible for the current overall score.