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
2ndNEW Claude Opus 4.6 67.6% Anthropic
3rd Gemini 2.5 Pro (06-05) 62.4% Google
4th Claude Opus 4.5 62.0% Anthropic
5th GPT-5 Pro 61.6% OpenAI
6th Gemini 3 Flash Preview 61.1% Google
7th Grok 4 60.5% xAI
8th Claude 4.1 Opus 60.0% Anthropic
9th Claude 4 Opus 58.8% Anthropic
10th GPT-5.2 Pro (xhigh) 57.4% OpenAI
11th GPT-5 (high) 56.7% OpenAI
12th Grok 4.1 Fast 56.0% xAI
13th Claude 4.5 Sonnet 54.3% Anthropic
14th GPT-5.1 (high) 53.2% OpenAI
15thNEW GLM 5 53.2% Zhipu AI
16th o3 (high) 53.1% OpenAI
17th DeepSeek 3.2 Speciale 52.6% DeepSeek
18th Gemini 2.5 Pro (03-25) 51.6% Google
19th GLM 4.7 47.7% Z.ai
20thNEW Kimi K2.5 46.8% Moonshot AI
21st Claude 3.7 Sonnet (thinking) 46.4% Anthropic
22nd GPT-5.2 (high) 45.8% OpenAI
23rd Claude 4 Sonnet (thinking) 45.5% Anthropic
24th Claude 3.7 Sonnet 44.9% Anthropic
25th o1-preview 41.7% OpenAI
26th Claude 3.5 Sonnet 10-22 41.4% Anthropic
27th Gemini 2.5 Flash (latest) 41.2% Google
28th DeepSeek R1 05/28 40.8% DeepSeek
29th o1-2024-12-17 (high) 40.1% OpenAI
30th DeepSeek V3.1 40.0% DeepSeek
31st Kimi K2 Thinking 39.6% Moonshot AI
32nd o4-mini (high) 38.7% OpenAI
33rd o1-2024-12-17 (med) 36.7% OpenAI
34th Grok 3 36.1% xAI
35th MiniMax M2.1 34.7% MiniMax
36th GPT-4.5 34.5% OpenAI
37th Gemini-exp-1206 31.1% Google
38th Qwen3 235B-A22B 31.0% Alibaba
39th DeepSeek R1 30.9% DeepSeek
40th Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking 30.7% Google
41st Llama 4 Maverick 27.7% Meta
42nd Claude 3.5 Sonnet 06-20 27.5% Anthropic
43rd DeepSeek V3 03-24 27.2% DeepSeek
44th Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 27.1% Google
45th GPT-4.1 27.0% OpenAI
46th Kimi K2 26.3% Kimi AI
47th GPT-4 Turbo 25.1% OpenAI
48th MiniMax M2 25.0% MiniMax
49th Claude 3 Opus 23.5% Anthropic
50th Llama 3.1 405b instruct 23.0% Meta
51st o3-mini (high) 22.8% OpenAI
52nd Grok 2 22.7% xAI
53rd Mistral Large v2 22.5% Mistral
54th GPT-OSS 120B 22.1% OpenAI
55th Mistral Large 3 20.4% Mistral
56th Llama 3.3 70b instruct 19.9% Meta
57th DeepSeek V3 18.9% DeepSeek
58th Gemini 2.0 Flash Exp 18.9% Google
59th o1-mini 18.1% OpenAI
60th GPT-4o 08-06 17.8% OpenAI
61st Command R+ 17.4% Cohere
62nd 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.