All articles Harvey LAB-AA (Legal Agent Benchmark) is our implementation of Harvey's new agentic legal benchmark, evaluating language models on real-world legal work across 24 practice areas.
Models are tested on a private set of 120 legal tasks built by the team at Harvey, spanning practice areas from corporate M&A and capital markets to tax, litigation, and bankruptcy. Models work to create the legal outputs specified in each task, and each task is graded against a rubric of binary criteria. The primary metric we present is the all-pass rate: the share of tasks where all criteria in the rubric are satisfied, reflecting the high standard of real-world professional legal deliverables.
Score #
Harvey LAB-AA: All-pass Rate
Claude Fable 5 (max, with Opus 4.8 fallback) leads Harvey LAB-AA with a 14.2% all-pass rate, after falling back to Claude Opus 4.8 on only one task. This is almost double the next best models, Claude Opus 4.8 (max) and GLM-5.2 (max), which tie at 7.5%, followed by MiniMax-M3 at 6.7% and Claude Sonnet 5 at 5.0%.
Frontier legal work is far from solved: most models pass a majority of individual rubric criteria but fully satisfy the requirements of very few tasks. The best model still leaves ~86% of professional legal deliverables incomplete, and 13 of the 28 models evaluated at launch fully pass zero tasks. Only four models score above 90% on criterion pass rate: Claude Fable 5 (93.6%), Claude Opus 4.8 (91.1%), GLM-5.2 (91.0%), and Claude Sonnet 5 (90.1%).
For up-to-date results see the Harvey LAB-AA evaluation page. Charts show data as at 7 July 2026.
Cost #
Harvey LAB-AA: Cost per Task
Token Usage #
Harvey LAB-AA: Output Tokens per Task
Speed #
Harvey LAB-AA: Time per Task
Turns #
Harvey LAB-AA Benchmark Leaderboard: Average Turns per Task
Score vs. Release Date #
Harvey LAB-AA: All-pass Rate vs. Release Date
Example Tasks & Submissions #
Browse representative Harvey LAB tasks from the public task set, the reference files each model was given, and the deliverables it produced.
Instructions
Review the attached acquisition data room contracts and internal memo for change of control and assignment provisions, and prepare a comprehensive deal team report.
Output: coc-analysis-report.docx
Deliverables
Expected outputs the model must produce
- coc-analysis-report.docxA comprehensive deal team report analyzing change of control and assignment provisions across the target’s material contracts.
Reference files
Provided to the model
Model submissions
Deliverables produced by each model
How Harvey LAB-AA differs from Harvey's LAB #
Harvey LAB-AA is our independent reimplementation of Harvey's evaluation, and there are several key differences to the original version:
- Models are run on our Stirrupagent harness, enabling features such as context compaction rather than failure when reaching context limits, with simplified Artificial Analysis-authored agent and judge prompts - We do not include Harvey's custom tools and document-generation skill scripts (e.g. pptx, docx), instead providing a simple code execution tool to reflect raw model ability
- Deliverables must match the exact filename specified, rather than fuzzy matching when models produce incorrect filenames
- Grading uses a single Gemini 3.1 Pro judge, tested to be well-calibrated against a frontier panel
Harvey LAB-AA resources #
- The leaderboard and full results live on the Harvey LAB-AA evaluation page, updated as new models are released - The methodology pagedocuments the full implementation, including the agent and grading prompts Harvey's original LAB announcementintroduces the benchmark and its design- A public set of representative tasks is available on
[GitHub](https://github.com/harveyai/harvey-labs) - Harvey LAB-AA runs on
[Stirrup](https://github.com/ArtificialAnalysis/Stirrup), our open-source agent framework
Read the latest
How GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, Luna compare on intelligence vs cost
GPT-5.6 Sol and Luna are ahead of Terra at every point on the Intelligence vs Cost per Task chart. GPT-5.6 Luna stands out as a particularly cost efficient model
July 13, 2026
Muse Spark 1.1: Meta gains 8 Intelligence Index points in three months
Meta's Muse Spark 1.1 scores 51 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and is cost and token efficient compared to its peers
July 10, 2026
GPT-5.6 benchmarks across Intelligence, Speed and Cost
GPT-5.6 Sol comes close second to Claude Fable 5 in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at one third of the cost, and leads the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index in OpenAI’s Codex harness
July 9, 2026