SimpleBench

Where Everyday Human Reasoning Still Surpasses Frontier Models

SimpleBench Team

Introduction

We introduce SimpleBench, a multiple-choice text benchmark for LLMs where individuals with unspecialized (high school) knowledge outperform SOTA models. SimpleBench includes over 200 questions covering spatio-temporal reasoning, social intelligence, and what we call linguistic adversarial robustness (or trick questions). For the vast majority of text-based benchmarks LLMs outperform a non-specialized human, and increasingly, exceed expert human performance. However, on SimpleBench, a non-specialized human baseline is 83.7%, based on our small sample of nine participants, outperforming all 13 tested LLMs, including o1-preview, which scored 41.7%. While we expect model performance to improve over time, the results of SimpleBench confirm that the memorized knowledge, and approximate reasoning retrieval, utilized by frontier LLMs is not always enough to answer basic questions just yet.

Use all of these models on the Simple Bench app - LMcouncil.ai

Leaderboard

Rank Model Score (AVG@5) Organization
- Human Baseline* 83.7%
1st Gemini 3 Pro Preview 76.4% Google
2nd Gemini 2.5 Pro (06-05) 62.4% Google
3rd Claude Opus 4.5 62.0% Anthropic
4th GPT-5 Pro 61.6% OpenAI
5th Gemini 3 Flash Preview 61.1% Google
6th Grok 4 60.5% xAI
7th Claude 4.1 Opus 60.0% Anthropic
8th Claude 4 Opus 58.8% Anthropic
9th GPT-5.2 Pro (xhigh) 57.4% OpenAI
10th GPT-5 (high) 56.7% OpenAI
11th Grok 4.1 Fast 56.0% xAI
12th Claude 4.5 Sonnet 54.3% Anthropic
13th GPT-5.1 (high) 53.2% OpenAI
14th o3 (high) 53.1% OpenAI
15th DeepSeek 3.2 Speciale 52.6% DeepSeek
16th Gemini 2.5 Pro (03-25) 51.6% Google
17th GLM 4.7 47.7% Z.ai
18th Claude 3.7 Sonnet (thinking) 46.4% Anthropic
19th GPT-5.2 (high) 45.8% OpenAI
20th Claude 4 Sonnet (thinking) 45.5% Anthropic
21st Claude 3.7 Sonnet 44.9% Anthropic
22nd o1-preview 41.7% OpenAI
23rd Claude 3.5 Sonnet 10-22 41.4% Anthropic
24th Gemini 2.5 Flash (latest) 41.2% Google
25th DeepSeek R1 05/28 40.8% DeepSeek
26th o1-2024-12-17 (high) 40.1% OpenAI
27th DeepSeek V3.1 40.0% DeepSeek
28th Kimi K2 Thinking 39.6% Moonshot AI
29th o4-mini (high) 38.7% OpenAI
30th o1-2024-12-17 (med) 36.7% OpenAI
31st Grok 3 36.1% xAI
32nd MiniMax M2.1 34.7% MiniMax
33rd GPT-4.5 34.5% OpenAI
34th Gemini-exp-1206 31.1% Google
35th Qwen3 235B-A22B 31.0% Alibaba
36th DeepSeek R1 30.9% DeepSeek
37th Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking 30.7% Google
38th Llama 4 Maverick 27.7% Meta
39th Claude 3.5 Sonnet 06-20 27.5% Anthropic
40th DeepSeek V3 03-24 27.2% DeepSeek
41st Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 27.1% Google
42nd GPT-4.1 27.0% OpenAI
43rd Kimi K2 26.3% Kimi AI
44th GPT-4 Turbo 25.1% OpenAI
45th MiniMax M2 25.0% MiniMax
46th Claude 3 Opus 23.5% Anthropic
47th Llama 3.1 405b instruct 23.0% Meta
48th o3-mini (high) 22.8% OpenAI
49th Grok 2 22.7% xAI
50th Mistral Large v2 22.5% Mistral
51st GPT-OSS 120B 22.1% OpenAI
52nd Mistral Large 3 20.4% Mistral
53rd Llama 3.3 70b instruct 19.9% Meta
54th DeepSeek V3 18.9% DeepSeek
55th Gemini 2.0 Flash Exp 18.9% Google
56th o1-mini 18.1% OpenAI
57th GPT-4o 08-06 17.8% OpenAI
58th Command R+ 17.4% Cohere
59th GPT-4o mini 10.7% OpenAI
temperature: 0.7, top-p: 0.95 (except o1 series)
*See Human Evaluation section of Report for details on how we calculated Human Baseline.
**We try an engineered prompt to optimize benchmark specific performance. See LLM Eval section of Report for details.

Video Summary

Evaluating Reasoning and Prompting

Performance comparison of different models on selected benchmarks

To assess LLMs fairly, we standardized prompts across all models, directing them to choose the most realistic answer step-by-step (COT). Additionally, we tested a benchmark specific engineered prompt for select models. Prompt engineering showed slight improvements suggesting that while tailored prompts can aid performance, fundamental limitations remain. In the full report, we also hypothesize that the surprising underperformance of GPT4o stems from optimizing for specific industrial applications (math and coding) at the expense of holistic reasoning.

For a deeper dive into our results and our methods, check out the full technical report here.