Terminal-Bench 2.0
Second-generation terminal agent benchmark with 89 high-quality tasks spanning software engineering, machine learning, security, data science, and other real shell environments. High benchmark score alone doesn't make a model the right pick — weigh it against pricing, API availability, and release date.
Models ranked
28
tracked on this benchmark
Score band
82.7 – 10.1
best → lowest tracked
Snapshot trend
+20.90
Jun 9 → Jul 3 · 1 models
Leaderboard
Tracked models ranked by % Tasks Completed (higher is better).
Notes: Not directly comparable to Claude Opus 4.8 in this datapack; no Opus 4.8 Terminal-Bench 2.0 row was found. Use Terminal-Bench 2.1 for the head-to-head comparison.
Notes: Confidence: medium. DAT-4756 secondary-source score for the Cursor IDE-native Composer 2.5 agent; useful for comparison but still reflects the full Cursor agent system rather than a standalone base-model run.
Notes: OpenAI GPT-5.3-Codex appendix reports GPT-5.2-Codex 64.0%, GPT-5.2 62.2%, GPT-5.1-Codex-Max 58.1%. Evaluator: OpenAI self-reported launch benchmark. Harness details are not fully reproducible from public text; compare separately from tbench.ai third-party agent rows. Confidence: confirmed for reported value, medium for reproducibility.
Notes: Confidence: medium. DAT-4934 found this via DataCamp citing Anthropic release notes; terminal-bench.com leaderboard was not independently accessible, and Composer 2.5 comparisons remain cross-harness.
Notes: Microsoft AI technical report Table 11 result for MAI-Thinking-1.
How to read this benchmark
This benchmark scores models where higher is better. Scores are useful for directional filtering and shortlisting — not for universal quality ranking. Prefer benchmarks closest to your workload, then validate the linked model pages for pricing, context window, and provider availability.
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.
FAQ
What does the Terminal-Bench 2.0 benchmark measure?
Second-generation terminal agent benchmark with 89 high-quality tasks spanning software engineering, machine learning, security, data science, and other real shell environments. On this page it lists 28 tracked model variants where higher is better.
Is a higher Terminal-Bench 2.0 score always better?
For this benchmark, higher is better. A high score helps you shortlist, but confirm pricing, context window, and provider availability on each model page before committing — the top scorer is not always the right pick for your workload or budget.
How current is this Terminal-Bench 2.0 data?
This benchmark was last reviewed on May 21, 2026. The tracked score average moved +20.90 points across the last 3 snapshots.
Related benchmarks
Last reviewed: May 21, 2026