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
5thNEW 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
9thNEW 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
15thNEW DeepSeek 3.2 Speciale 52.6% DeepSeek
16th Gemini 2.5 Pro (03-25) 51.6% Google
17th Claude 3.7 Sonnet (thinking) 46.4% Anthropic
18thNEW GPT-5.2 (high) 45.8% OpenAI
19th Claude 4 Sonnet (thinking) 45.5% Anthropic
20th Claude 3.7 Sonnet 44.9% Anthropic
21st o1-preview 41.7% OpenAI
22nd Claude 3.5 Sonnet 10-22 41.4% Anthropic
23rd Gemini 2.5 Flash (latest) 41.2% Google
24th DeepSeek R1 05/28 40.8% DeepSeek
25th o1-2024-12-17 (high) 40.1% OpenAI
26th DeepSeek V3.1 40.0% DeepSeek
27th Kimi K2 Thinking 39.6% Moonshot AI
28th o4-mini (high) 38.7% OpenAI
29th o1-2024-12-17 (med) 36.7% OpenAI
30th Grok 3 36.1% xAI
31st GPT-4.5 34.5% OpenAI
32nd Gemini-exp-1206 31.1% Google
33rd Qwen3 235B-A22B 31.0% Alibaba
34th DeepSeek R1 30.9% DeepSeek
35th Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking 30.7% Google
36th Llama 4 Maverick 27.7% Meta
37th Claude 3.5 Sonnet 06-20 27.5% Anthropic
38th DeepSeek V3 03-24 27.2% DeepSeek
39th Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 27.1% Google
40th GPT-4.1 27.0% OpenAI
41st Kimi K2 26.3% Kimi AI
42nd GPT-4 Turbo 25.1% OpenAI
43rd MiniMax M2 25.0% MiniMax
44th Claude 3 Opus 23.5% Anthropic
45th Llama 3.1 405b instruct 23.0% Meta
46th o3-mini (high) 22.8% OpenAI
47th Grok 2 22.7% xAI
48th Mistral Large v2 22.5% Mistral
49th GPT-OSS 120B 22.1% OpenAI
50th Mistral Large 3 20.4% Mistral
51st Llama 3.3 70b instruct 19.9% Meta
52nd DeepSeek V3 18.9% DeepSeek
53rd Gemini 2.0 Flash Exp 18.9% Google
54th o1-mini 18.1% OpenAI
55th GPT-4o 08-06 17.8% OpenAI
56th Command R+ 17.4% Cohere
57th 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.