benchmarks.bio

Omics · Capabilities

SpatialBench results

Agentic analysis of real spatial transcriptomics datasets across platforms and biological task types.

Published score: Verified subset (115 evaluations); Full benchmark: 159 evaluations · short horizon · data updated 2026-10-09

This page reports published SpatialBench scores from benchmarks.bio. SpatialBench contains 115 evaluations built from real experimental data, each one graded deterministically against the biological result the original analysis reached, so a run counts as a pass only when the agent recovers that result rather than when it produces plausible-looking output. Results are reported per model and per harness rather than per model alone, because the harness an agent runs under changes its score substantially. Scores use a 0-100 percentage scale and are not comparable across benchmarks; see the linked repository and paper for task construction, grading, and confidence-interval methodology.

Published SpatialBench scores
RankModelHarnessProviderScore
1Grok 4.6Grok BuildSpaceXAI77.4%
2DeepSeek V4.1 FlashPiDeepSeek75.4%
3GPT-5.6 SolCodexOpenAI74.5%
4GPT-5.6 SolPiOpenAI73.0%
5Claude Opus 5Claude CodeAnthropic71.0%
6Grok 4.5PiSpaceXAI71.0%
7GPT-5.6 TerraPiOpenAI70.4%
8GPT-6 AstraCodexOpenAI70.1%
9GPT-6 AstraPiOpenAI70.1%
10Grok 4.6PiSpaceXAI69.9%
11GPT-5.6 TerraCodexOpenAI69.6%
12Claude Sonnet 5PiAnthropic69.3%
13Claude Opus 4.8Claude CodeAnthropic69.0%
14Gemini 3.5 FlashPiGoogle67.0%
15Gemini 3.8 FlashPiGoogle67.0%
16Claude Opus 5PiAnthropic66.7%
17Claude Opus 4.8PiAnthropic66.4%
18GPT-5.5PiOpenAI65.2%
19GPT-5.5CodexOpenAI64.9%
20Claude Sonnet 5Claude CodeAnthropic64.3%
21Gemini 3.7 FlashPiGoogle64.3%
22Claude Opus 4.7Claude CodeAnthropic64.1%
23Claude Opus 4.7PiAnthropic63.8%
24Kimi K3PiMoonshot61.5%
25GPT-5.6 LunaCodexOpenAI60.6%
26GPT-5.6 LunaPiOpenAI57.1%

Methodology and provenance

Scores use a 0–100 percentage scale. See Paper PDF, Original publication, Repository for task construction, grading, aggregation, and uncertainty details.