LLM Reference
activeTool use

BFCL

Metric: Function Calling Accuracy (higher is better)Introduced: 2023

Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) evaluating LLM ability to correctly call functions/APIs with proper arguments across diverse domains. Currently on v3.

Models ranked

17

tracked on this benchmark

Score band

77.5 – 10.8

best → lowest tracked

Snapshot trend

+21.29

Apr 14 → Apr 19 · 5 models

Leaderboard

Tracked models ranked by Function Calling Accuracy (higher is better).

Compare candidates
#Model variant and provenanceScore
1
Claude Opus 4.5
Version: Not recordedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
77.5
2
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Version: Not recordedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
73.2
3
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Version: v4Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 19, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
72.9
4
Gemini 3 Pro
Version: v4Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 19, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
72.5
5
Claude Haiku 4.5
Version: v4Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 19, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
68.7
6
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Version: Not recordedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
56.2
7
GPT-5 Mini
Version: v4Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 19, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
55.5
8
GPT-4.1
Version: Not recordedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
54.0
9
o4-mini
Version: Not recordedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
53.2
10
GPT-4.1 Mini
Version: Not recordedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
50.5
11
Kimi K2.5
Version: v4Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 19, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
47.1
12
Mistral Large 2
Version: Not recordedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
38.4
13
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Version: Not recordedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
31.9
14
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Version: v4Harness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
25.8
15
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Version: Not recordedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
21.9
16
Ministral 8B
Version: Not recordedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
11.1
17
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Version: Not recordedHarness: Not recordedEvaluator: Not recordedObserved: Apr 14, 2026Confidence: Not recordedSource
10.8

How to read this benchmark

This benchmark scores models where higher is better. Use scores for directional filtering and shortlisting, not universal quality ranking; then validate pricing, context window, provider availability, and fit for your workload.

Trust this score when

  • There is a fresh timestamped snapshot (or multiple snapshots) for this benchmark.
  • The model list covers the same version family you can actually deploy today.
  • Top candidates overlap with your required routing and feature requirements.

Be cautious when

  • There is only one benchmark snapshot or the dataset appears stale.
  • The benchmark metric direction is opposite of your decision objective.
  • The score difference between options is narrow and likely within implementation variance.

Related benchmarks

Last reviewed: Apr 15, 2026

Resources