HealthBench Hard
Progress Over Time
Interactive timeline showing model performance evolution on HealthBench Hard
HealthBench Hard Leaderboard
| Context | Cost | License | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Meta | — | — | — | ||
| 2 | OpenAI | — | 1.1M | $5.00 / $30.00 | ||
| 3 | OpenAI | — | 1.1M | $2.50 / $15.00 | ||
| 4 | OpenAI | — | 1.1M | $1.00 / $6.00 | ||
| 5 | OpenAI | 117B | — | — | ||
| 6 | OpenAI | — | 128K | $1.75 / $14.00 | ||
| 7 | OpenAI | — | 400K | $5.00 / $30.00 | ||
| 8 | OpenAI | 21B | — | — | ||
| 9 | OpenAI | — | — | — |
What is HealthBench Hard?
A challenging variation of HealthBench that evaluates large language models' performance and safety in healthcare through 5,000 multi-turn conversations with particularly rigorous evaluation criteria validated by 262 physicians from 60 countries
HealthBench Hard is a text benchmark evaluating models on healthcare tasks. LLM Stats tracks 9 models on this benchmark, scored on a 0–1 scale. The current average is 0.3, with the leader at 0.4.
Compare leaders on the best AI for healthcare leaderboards.
Current leaders
Muse Spark from Meta currently leads the HealthBench Hard leaderboard with a score of 0.428 across 9 evaluated AI models.
Source paper
- Title
- HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health
- Authors
- Rahul K. Arora, Jason Wei, Rebecca Soskin Hicks, Preston Bowman, and 8 others
- Published
- arXiv
- 2505.08775
Abstract
We present HealthBench, an open-source benchmark measuring the performance and safety of large language models in healthcare. HealthBench consists of 5,000 multi-turn conversations between a model and an individual user or healthcare professional. Responses are evaluated using conversation-specific rubrics created by 262 physicians. Unlike previous multiple-choice or short-answer benchmarks, HealthBench enables realistic, open-ended evaluation through 48,562 unique rubric criteria spanning several health contexts (e.g., emergencies, transforming clinical data, global health) and behavioral dimensions (e.g., accuracy, instruction following, communication). HealthBench performance over the last two years reflects steady initial progress (compare GPT-3.5 Turbo's 16% to GPT-4o's 32%) and more rapid recent improvements (o3 scores 60%). Smaller models have especially improved: GPT-4.1 nano outperforms GPT-4o and is 25 times cheaper. We additionally release two HealthBench variations: HealthBench Consensus, which includes 34 particularly important dimensions of model behavior validated via physician consensus, and HealthBench Hard, where the current top score is 32%. We hope that HealthBench grounds progress towards model development and applications that benefit human health.
FAQ
Common questions about the HealthBench Hard benchmark and leaderboard.