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.

Powered by Weave, from : Click here to learn more about Weave

Leaderboard

Rank Model Score (AVG@5) Organization
- Human Baseline* 83.7%
1st Gemini 2.5 Pro (06-05) 62.4% Google
2nd GPT-5 Pro 61.6% OpenAI
3rd Grok 4 60.5% xAI
4th Claude 4.1 Opus 60.0% Anthropic
5th Claude 4 Opus 58.8% Anthropic
6th GPT-5 (high) 56.7% OpenAI
7th Claude 4.5 Sonnet 54.3% Anthropic
8th o3 (high) 53.1% OpenAI
9th Gemini 2.5 Pro (03-25) 51.6% Google
10th Claude 3.7 Sonnet (thinking) 46.4% Anthropic
11th Claude 4 Sonnet (thinking) 45.5% Anthropic
12th Claude 3.7 Sonnet 44.9% Anthropic
13th o1-preview 41.7% OpenAI
14th Claude 3.5 Sonnet 10-22 41.4% Anthropic
15th Gemini 2.5 Flash (latest) 41.2% Google
16th DeepSeek R1 05/28 40.8% DeepSeek
17th o1-2024-12-17 (high) 40.1% OpenAI
18th DeepSeek V3.1 40.0% DeepSeek
19thNEW Kimi K2 Thinking 39.6% Moonshot AI
20th o4-mini (high) 38.7% OpenAI
21st o1-2024-12-17 (med) 36.7% OpenAI
22nd Grok 3 36.1% xAI
23rd GPT-4.5 34.5% OpenAI
24th Gemini-exp-1206 31.1% Google
25th Qwen3 235B-A22B 31.0% Alibaba
26th DeepSeek R1 30.9% DeepSeek
27th Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking 30.7% Google
28th Llama 4 Maverick 27.7% Meta
29th Claude 3.5 Sonnet 06-20 27.5% Anthropic
30th DeepSeek V3 03-24 27.2% DeepSeek
31st Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 27.1% Google
32nd GPT-4.1 27.0% OpenAI
33rd Kimi K2 26.3% Kimi AI
34th GPT-4 Turbo 25.1% OpenAI
35th Claude 3 Opus 23.5% Anthropic
36th Llama 3.1 405b instruct 23.0% Meta
37th o3-mini (high) 22.8% OpenAI
38th Grok 2 22.7% xAI
39th Mistral Large v2 22.5% Mistral
40th GPT-OSS 120B 22.1% OpenAI
41st Llama 3.3 70b instruct 19.9% Meta
42nd DeepSeek V3 18.9% DeepSeek
43rd Gemini 2.0 Flash Exp 18.9% Google
44th o1-mini 18.1% OpenAI
45th GPT-4o 08-06 17.8% OpenAI
46th Command R+ 17.4% Cohere
47th 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.