long context benchmark
LongBench v2 is a benchmark for assessing LLMs on long-context problems requiring deep understanding and reasoning across real-world multitasks.
Updated Sep 5, 2026
Higher score ranks better on this benchmark.
Rank | Model | Score | Percentile | Participants | Evidence | Evaluated |
|---|
| Rank01 | ModelAC | Score66.30% | Percentile100.00% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank02 | ModelAC | Score63.20% | Percentile93.75% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank03 | ModelAC | Score62.00% | Percentile87.50% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank04 | ModelNV | Score61.90% | Percentile81.25% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank05 | ModelMI | Score61.50% | Percentile75.00% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank06 | ModelMA | Score61.00% | Percentile68.75% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank07 | ModelMI | Score61.00% | Percentile62.50% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank08 | ModelMI | Score61.00% | Percentile56.25% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank09 | ModelXI | Score60.60% | Percentile50.00% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank10 | ModelAC | Score60.60% | Percentile43.75% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank11 | ModelAC | Score60.20% | Percentile37.50% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank12 | ModelAC | Score59.00% | Percentile31.25% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank13 | ModelAC | Score55.20% | Percentile25.00% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank14 | ModelAC | Score50.00% | Percentile18.75% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank15 | ModelDE | Score48.70% | Percentile12.50% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank16 | ModelAC | Score38.70% | Percentile6.25% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
| Rank17 | ModelAC | Score26.10% | Percentile0.00% | Participants17 | EvidenceC | Evaluated |
The leading models and scores on this benchmark.
A closer view of the leading scores on this benchmark.
The first five results on this benchmark, with official price and output speed added where the model identity can be matched.
What LongBench v2 measures and how its scores work.
It consists of 503 challenging multiple-choice questions with contexts ranging from 8k to 2M words across six task categories: single-document QA, multi-document QA, long in-context learning, long-dialogue history understanding, code repository understanding, and long structured data understanding.
It measures performance on these six long-context task categories, reported as Score with unit ratio.
Scores are shown in ratio. This benchmark is not independently verified and has an evidence level of C.
LLM Stats. Benchmark scores retain their original unit. Overall score eligibility is shown separately.
Common questions about LongBench v2.
Qwen3.8 Max is currently ranked first with 66.30%.
The current leaders are Qwen3.8 Max (66.30%), Qwen3.5-397B-A17B (63.20%), and Qwen3.6 Plus (62.00%).
MiMo-V2-Flash has the lowest matched official input price at $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens.
The fastest matched records are DeepSeek-V3 (100.00 tok/s via DeepSeek) and Qwen3.8 Max (60.87 tok/s via DeepInfra).
No. This benchmark measures one defined capability or task. The overall LLMBoard score uses a separate aggregation across eligible benchmark evidence.
It measures performance on these six long-context task categories, reported as Score with unit ratio.
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
17 model results are currently shown.
No. This benchmark is shown for reference but does not contribute to the overall score.
Ranking basisThis longbench v2 AI model leaderboard uses descending score in the benchmark original unit. The leaderboard ranking keeps matched price and speed data separate from benchmark evidence.
Selection summary
Qwen3.8 Max currently leads LongBench v2 with 66.30%. It is the top model on this specific benchmark, while the best LLM for the broader task should also be checked against other benchmarks, price, and runtime.
Use this leaderboard with the supporting benchmark results and coverage details above. A leaderboard position summarizes the selected ranking signal; it does not replace workload-specific testing.