reasoning benchmark
Vending-Bench 2 tests longer horizon planning capabilities by evaluating how well AI models can manage a simulated vending machine business over extended periods. The benchmark measures a model's ability to maintain consistent tool usage and decision-making for a full simulated year of operation, driving higher returns without drifting off task.
Updated Aug 7, 2026
Sorted by the source-provided rank. Higher score is better according to the registry.
| 1 | AN | 801759.0% | 100.0% | 4 | C | |
| 2 | ZA | 563441.0% | 66.7% | 4 | C | |
| 3 | GO | 547816.0% | 33.3% | 4 | C | |
| 4 | GO | 363500.0% | 0.0% | 4 | 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.
Vending-Bench 2 tests longer horizon planning capabilities by evaluating how well AI models can manage a simulated vending machine business over extended periods. The benchmark measures a model's ability to maintain consistent tool usage and decision-making for a full simulated year of operation, driving higher returns without drifting off task.
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 Vending-Bench 2.
Claude Opus 4.6 is currently ranked first with 801759.0%.
Vending-Bench 2 tests longer horizon planning capabilities by evaluating how well AI models can manage a simulated vending machine business over extended periods. The benchmark measures a model's ability to maintain consistent tool usage and decision-making for a full simulated year of operation, driving higher returns without drifting off task.
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
4 unique published model results are currently shown.
This benchmark is preserved as source-native evidence but is not eligible for the current overall score.