reasoning benchmark
DeepPlanning evaluates LLMs on complex multi-step planning tasks requiring long-horizon reasoning, goal decomposition, and strategic decision-making.
Updated Aug 7, 2026
Sorted by the source-provided rank. Higher score is better according to the registry.
| 1 | AC | 62.3% | 100.0% | 9 | C | |
| 2 | AC | 41.5% | 87.5% | 9 | C | |
| 3 | AC | 34.3% | 75.0% | 9 | C | |
| 4 | AC | 25.9% | 62.5% | 9 | C | |
| 5 | AC | 24.1% | 50.0% | 9 | C | |
| 6 | AC | 22.8% | 37.5% | 9 | C | |
| 7 | AC | 22.6% | 25.0% | 9 | C | |
| 8 | AC | 18.0% | 12.5% | 9 | C | |
| 9 | AC | 17.6% | 0.0% | 9 | 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.
DeepPlanning evaluates LLMs on complex multi-step planning tasks requiring long-horizon reasoning, goal decomposition, and strategic decision-making.
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 DeepPlanning.
Qwen3.7-Plus is currently ranked first with 62.3%.
DeepPlanning evaluates LLMs on complex multi-step planning tasks requiring long-horizon reasoning, goal decomposition, and strategic decision-making.
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
9 unique published model results are currently shown.
This benchmark is preserved as source-native evidence but is not eligible for the current overall score.