Who is the Truly Strongest Agent in OpenClaw? Leaderboard of 23 Real-World Task Evaluations Released

marsbitPublicado a 2026-04-08Actualizado a 2026-04-08

Resumen

This report presents a comprehensive benchmark evaluating the performance of AI coding agents on 23 real-world OpenClaw tasks, focusing solely on the core metric of success rate. The transparent and reproducible testing methodology employs three scoring methods: automated checks, an LLM judge (Claude Opus), and a hybrid approach. The diverse task set covers areas like code/file operations, content creation, research, system tools, and memory persistence. The top 10 models by success rate (Best % / Avg %) are: 1. anthropic/claude-opus-4.6 (93.3% / 82.0%) 2. arcee-ai/trinity-large-thinking (91.9% / 91.9%) 3. openai/gpt-5.4 (90.5% / 81.7%) 4. qwen/qwen3.5-27b (90.0% / 78.5%) 5. minimax/minimax-m2.7 (89.8% / 83.2%) Claude Opus 4.6 leads in peak performance, while Arcee's Trinity demonstrates superior average success rate stability. The Qwen series shows strong cost-performance potential with multiple entries in the top ten. All task definitions and scoring logic are publicly available for independent verification.

Want to know which large language model truly performs the strongest in OpenClaw's real-world agent tasks?

MyToken, based on evaluation websites, has compiled a transparent benchmark focused on assessing the practical capabilities of AI coding agents, looking solely at the core dimension of success rate (speed and cost belong to other independent dimensions, to be analyzed separately later). Fully public and reproducible, it only presents rigorous evaluation standards + the latest Top 10 success rate rankings.

I. Evaluation Dimension:Success Rate

Specific standard: The percentage of given tasks that the AI agent completes accurately and fully. Each task adopts a highly standardized process:

  • Precise user prompt

Sent to the agent in full to simulate real user request scenarios

  • Expected Behavior

Clearly states acceptable implementation methods and key decision points

  • Scoring Criteria (checklist)

Lists an atomic success判定 (judgment) checklist for verification item by item

II. Three Scoring Methods

This evaluation primarily employs 3 scoring methods:

  • Automated Checks: Python scripts directly verify objective results like file content, execution records, tool calls, etc.

  • LLM Judge: Claude Opus scores according to a detailed scale (content quality, appropriateness, completeness, etc.)

  • Hybrid Mode: Combines automated objective checks + LLM judge qualitative assessment

All task definitions, Prompts, and scoring logic are fully public for retesting and verification.

III. Tasks Used for Evaluation

This benchmark covers 23 tasks across different categories. It spans multiple dimensions including basic interaction, file/code operations, content creation, research & analysis, system tool calls, memory persistence, etc., highly aligning with developers' daily use scenarios of OpenClaw:

  1. Sanity Check(Automated) —— Process simple instructions and reply to greetings correctly

  2. Calendar Event Creation(Automated) —— Generate a standard ICS calendar file from natural language

  3. Stock Price Research(Automated) —— Query stock prices in real-time and output a formatted report

  4. Blog Post Writing(LLM Judge) —— Write a ~500-word structured Markdown blog post

  5. Weather Script Creation(Automated) —— Write a Python weather API script with error handling

  6. Document Summarization(LLM Judge) —— Provide a refined 3-part summary of the core themes

  7. Tech Conference Research(LLM Judge) —— Research and organize information (name, date, location, link) for 5 real tech conferences

  8. Professional Email Drafting(LLM Judge) —— Politely decline a meeting and propose an alternative

  9. Memory Retrieval from Context(Automated) —— Precisely extract dates, members, tech stack, etc., from project notes

  10. File Structure Creation(Automated) —— Automatically generate standard project directories, README, .gitignore

  11. Multi-step API Workflow(Hybrid) —— Read config → Write calling script → Fully document

  12. Install ClawdHub Skill(Automated) —— Install from the skill repository and verify usability

  13. Search and Install Skill(Automated) —— Search for weather-related skills and install correctly

  14. AI Image Generation(Hybrid) —— Generate and save an image based on description

  15. Humanize AI-Generated Blog(LLM Judge) —— Rewrite machine-like content into natural spoken language

  16. Daily Research Summary(LLM Judge) —— Synthesize multiple documents into a coherent daily summary

  17. Email Inbox Triage(Hybrid) —— Analyze multiple emails and organize a report by urgency

  18. Email Search and Summarization(Hybrid) —— Search archived emails and extract key information

  19. Competitive Market Research(Hybrid) —— Competitive analysis in the enterprise APM field

  20. CSV and Excel Summarization(Hybrid) —— Analyze spreadsheet files and output insights

  21. ELI5 PDF Summarization(LLM Judge) —— Explain a technical PDF in language a 5-year-old can understand

  22. OpenClaw Report Comprehension(Automated) —— Precisely answer specific questions from a research report PDF

  23. Second Brain Knowledge Persistence(Hybrid) —— Store information across sessions and recall it accurately

IV. Core Conclusion: Top 10 Large Model Rankings by Success Rate (Best % / Avg %)

  • Data updated to April 7, 2026

  • Best % is the single highest success rate, Avg % is the average success rate over multiple runs, better reflecting stability

Below are the top ten models by success rate:

  1. anthropic/claude-opus-4.6(Anthropic)——93.3% / 82.0%

  2. arcee-ai/trinity-large-thinking(Arcee AI)——91.9% / 91.9%

  3. openai/gpt-5.4(OpenAI)——90.5% / 81.7%

  4. qwen/qwen3.5-27b(Qwen)——90.0% / 78.5%

  5. minimax/minimax-m2.7(MiniMax)——89.8% / 83.2%

  6. anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5(Anthropic)——89.5% / 78.1%

  7. qwen/qwen3.5-397b-a17b(Qwen)——89.1% / 80.4%

  8. xiaomi/mimo-v2-flash(Xiaomi)——88.8% / 70.2%

  9. qwen/qwen3.6-plus-preview(Qwen)——88.6% / 84.0%

  10. nvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b(NVIDIA)——88.6% / 75.5%

Claude Opus 4.6 currently leads with the highest success rate of 93.3%, but Arcee's Trinity shows impressive performance in average stability. The Qwen series also has multiple entries in the top ten, demonstrating strong cost-performance potential. Success rate is the basic threshold; subsequent dimensions of speed and cost will further impact the actual experience.

This set of 23 task benchmarks is fully transparent. We strongly encourage everyone to conduct practical tests结合 (combining with) their own scenarios. For rankings of more other models, please look forward to the agent leaderboard feature即将 (soon to be) launched by MyToken.

(Data sourced from PinchBench's publicly available OpenClaw agent benchmark tests, continuously updated.)

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the core evaluation dimension used in the OpenClaw agent benchmark?

AThe core evaluation dimension is success rate, which measures the percentage of tasks that the AI agent completes accurately and completely.

QHow many real-world tasks are included in the OpenClaw benchmark test?

AThe benchmark test covers 23 different real-world tasks.

QWhich model achieved the highest single-run success rate (Best %) in the ranking?

Aanthropic/claude-opus-4.6 from Anthropic achieved the highest single-run success rate of 93.3%.

QWhat are the three scoring methods used to evaluate the agents' performance?

AThe three scoring methods are: 1) Automated checks using Python scripts, 2) LLM judge (Claude Opus) evaluation, and 3) A hybrid mode combining automated checks and LLM evaluation.

QWhich model showed the best performance in average success rate (Avg %), indicating greater stability?

Aarcee-ai/trinity-large-thinking from Arcee AI achieved the highest average success rate of 91.9%, indicating the best stability.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

The AI boom is facing an unexpected bottleneck: a severe shortage of skilled construction workers and electricians. As tech giants like Meta, OpenAI, and Alphabet race to build massive data centers—such as OpenAI's $16 billion "Stargate" project—they are hitting a critical labor wall. The U.S. needs an estimated 130,000 more electricians, 240,000 construction workers, and 150,000 supervisors by 2030 for AI infrastructure alone, but tens of thousands of electrician jobs go unfilled each year. While AI companies offer high premiums, with electricians earning up to $280,000 annually, worker scarcity still causes massive losses—delays on a single project can cost $14.2 million per month. The complexity of building AI data centers, which require immense power (equivalent to powering hundreds of thousands of homes), sophisticated electrical systems, and advanced liquid cooling solutions, demands highly skilled technicians who are in short supply. To combat this, companies are investing heavily in training. Meta has committed $115 million to a free training school offering tuition, housing, and stipends, targeting 5,000 new workers. OpenAI is partnering with unions to secure skilled labor. These efforts are paying off, with a significant rise in Gen Z interest in trade schools over college. However, the power demands are staggering. AI data centers are driving a rapid surge in electricity consumption, projected to account for up to 12% of U.S. power use by 2028 and raising costs for consumers. Furthermore, the construction boom is project-based, leading to a potential future glut of trained workers once building peaks, which could depress wages industry-wide. The race for AI supremacy now depends as much on skilled hands as on advanced chips.

marsbitHace 49 min(s)

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

marsbitHace 49 min(s)

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

OpenAI is shifting its business strategy away from promoting its most expensive, flagship models for every task. Recent price cuts—80% for GPT-5.6 Luna and 20% for Terra—signal a deeper change: the company now actively advises users that many tasks don't require the most powerful model. Instead, OpenAI recommends a tiered approach: use the high-end GPT-5.6 Sol for complex planning and analysis, then delegate execution to cheaper models like Luna. This mirrors moves by Anthropic, which recently launched Claude Opus 5 at half the price of its top model, Fable 5. Both companies are de-emphasizing flagship models as primary revenue drivers, using them instead for brand prestige and technological showcases. The industry is entering a "mass-market" phase, similar to automotive, where high-volume, cost-effective models handle daily operations and drive scale. OpenAI's price reductions are partly enabled by AI models themselves optimizing underlying code and infrastructure, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of efficiency gains and cost reduction. Competition is shifting from "who is smartest" to "who offers the best value." The goal is no longer selling individual models but fostering widespread API adoption and ecosystem lock-in. By making AI calls cheap and ubiquitous, companies like OpenAI aim to become the indispensable, utility-like infrastructure powering automated workflows—the "water and electricity" of software, quietly embedded everywhere.

marsbitHace 49 min(s)

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

marsbitHace 49 min(s)

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

The market's expectation for a September Fed rate hike surged dramatically in early August, jumping from under 50% to over 80% within a week. This shift followed a contentious July FOMC meeting, where a 9-3 vote to hold rates revealed growing dissent from hawkish members advocating for an immediate hike to combat persistent inflation. The primary catalyst for this repricing is rising oil prices, driven by renewed geopolitical tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, which threaten global supply. Energy costs directly influence inflation metrics, making the upcoming July CPI report (due August 12th) a critical data point. If it shows inflation reaccelerating, the probability of a September hike will solidify. For Bitcoin and crypto assets, this is typically bearish news. Bitcoin continues to behave as a high-beta, liquidity-sensitive risk asset. A rate hike raises the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets and could drive capital toward money markets, pressuring crypto prices in the short term. However, historical patterns suggest that if a hike is perceived as the end of a tightening cycle rather than the start, any negative price impact may be brief. U.S. stocks, particularly crypto-linked equities like Coinbase and growth-oriented tech stocks, are also vulnerable. Higher rates increase discount rates in valuation models, putting pressure on high-multiple companies. This coincides with a pivotal tech earnings season where investor focus has shifted from massive AI capital expenditure to tangible revenue and cash flow generation. Companies with negative cash flow and weak growth narratives could face heightened volatility if borrowing costs rise in September. In summary, a September Fed hike has evolved into a mainstream market scenario. Key factors to watch are oil prices, the July CPI report, and Fed communications, which will determine the final decision and its impact on volatile crypto and equity markets.

marsbitHace 59 min(s)

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

marsbitHace 59 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片