Data story · gap

The open versus proprietary gap in 2026

Average scores for open-weight and proprietary models on each benchmark in the index.

What the data shows

The gap varies by benchmark. On some tasks the two groups are close; on others the proprietary average is clearly ahead. A single aggregate number hides that variation.

The comparison is descriptive, not causal. Group averages mix different model sizes, prices and release dates.

How to read it

  • Compare the gap on the benchmark closest to your task.
  • Check the best open model, not just the group average.
  • Account for self-hosting cost.
  • Test both groups on your own data.

Open versus proprietary scores

BenchmarkOpen avgProprietary avgGap
MMLU-Pro69.779.710.0
GPQA Diamond61.172.911.9
SWE-bench Verified52.366.013.6
HumanEval69.281.812.6
MATH-50067.281.013.8
AIME 202557.573.516.0
LiveCodeBench55.470.214.8
IFEval74.784.910.1
TruthfulQA69.779.910.1
HellaSwag78.386.48.1
MMMU63.073.911.0
Arena Elo1315.21406.291.0

Methodology

This story uses the AI & LLM Index dataset: 600 models, 40 providers and 12 benchmarks. Prices are listed per million tokens. Scores are modelled estimates on a 0–100 scale and are not official benchmark results. Figures are rounded for readability.

Related

FAQ

What does the The open versus proprietary gap in 2026 data show?

Average scores for open-weight and proprietary models on each benchmark in the index.

Are the numbers official?

No. Prices and scores are compiled for this demo index. Benchmark values are modelled estimates, not official results. Verify figures with the provider or benchmark owner before making decisions.

How should I use this ranking?

Use it to form a shortlist. Check the specific model pages, compare price and context, and test the shortlist on your own examples before committing.