We introduce Crypto Accounting Bench (CAB), a benchmark for assessing whether frontier and open-weight language models can reconstruct the complete journal entry that an organization actually posted for a crypto-asset transaction. CAB contains 118 evaluation tasks drawn from 7 pseudonymized organizations. Each task combines transaction mechanics, asset quantities and base-currency values, wallet and legal-entity context, counterparty evidence, related transaction legs, recurrence, tax-lot evidence, and the organization's complete chart of accounts. The target is a balanced structured entry with every required account, side, amount, currency, and full-precision asset quantity. We evaluate 12 models spanning proprietary frontier systems and open-weight releases over 3 independent attempts per task, producing 4,248 trajectories. We report 3 metrics: Mean Score, Best@3, and Pass@3. Pass@3 is the fraction of tasks with at least 1 of 3 attempts that satisfies every rubric criterion and required gate. The leading model reaches 77.43% Mean Score, while the best Pass@3 is 56.78%. Deterministic diagnostics, read from each task's best of 3 attempts and macro-averaged across the 12 models, show higher base-amount agreement (97.8%) than deciding-account accuracy (56.3%). Together with the failure analysis, these results identify account selection and complete-entry composition as the main remaining challenges on CAB.
We introduce APEX-Accounting, a benchmark built by Mercor in partnership with Ramp, to assess whether frontier models can do the real work of accountants. Tasks include reconciling accounts, accruing expenses, posting transactions, and producing reports. The private eval set comprises 160 tasks, split across 10 worlds. Each world contains an accounting system, as well as spreadsheets, PDFs, and other files. Every task was authored and solved by experts in accounting and bookkeeping, who also wrote grading rubrics. Across nine frontier models, Claude-Fable-5 (Max) leads with 56.4% Mean Criteria@3, ahead of Muse-Spark-1.1 (xHigh) at 52.6%. No model scores more than 2.6% Pass^8 (GPT-5.6-Sol (Max+Pro)) and the highest Pass@8 is 21.5% (Muse-Spark-1.1 (xHigh)). We experiment with increasing the token budget from 1to50 and observe an instance of Simpson's paradox: scores increase as the token budget increases but within a given budget-constrained harness, scores are lower on tasks where the model spends more tokens. As APEX-Accounting is a closed benchmark, leaderboard evals can be run for any frontier model on request.
Existing financial-NLP benchmarks mostly evaluate prepared artifacts such as filings, tables, or extracted values. Real accounting begins earlier: source documents must be reconciled into cited journal entries, aggregated into a balance sheet, and checked for contradictions. We introduce FinBalance, a multi-document accounting reconciliation benchmark built from source-document bundles across eight industries, three period types, and five difficulty levels. Human-authored business scenarios, accounting policies, tax/FX treatments, document schemas, distractors, and inconsistency templates are composed by a deterministic generator whose ledger produces journal entries,balance sheets, and 23 inconsistency-code labels. On a 710-record evaluation split, six contemporary LLMs reach at most 46% exact final-balance-sheet accuracy. Four models show a 26-41 pp gap between BS_exact, the model's reported balance sheet, and BS_recon, the balance sheet obtained by replaying its entries through our ledger. Models often recover numerically plausible entries but fail to bind them to supporting documents and aggregate them consistently. Citation-pressure prompting barely changes document-linking errors, while ledger-feedback ablations substantially improve reported balance sheets and expose inconsistency-detection trade-offs. Expert finance reviewers validate the benchmark design and labels.
We introduce LATTICE, a benchmark for evaluating the decision support utility of crypto agents in realistic user-facing scenarios. Prior crypto agent benchmarks mainly focus on reasoning-based or outcome-based evaluation, but do not assess agents' ability to assist user decision-making. LATTICE addresses this gap by: (1) defining six evaluation dimensions that capture key decision support properties; (2) proposing 16 task types that span the end-to-end crypto copilot workflow; and (3) using LLM judges to automatically score agent outputs based on these dimensions and tasks. Crucially, the dimensions and tasks are designed to be evaluable at scale using LLM judges, without relying on ground truth from expert annotators or external data sources. In lieu of these dependencies, LATTICE's LLM judge rubrics can be continually audited and updated given new dimensions, tasks, criteria, and human feedback, thus promoting reliable and extensible evaluation. While other benchmarks often compare foundation models sharing a generic agent framework, we use LATTICE to assess production-level agents used in actual crypto copilot products, reflecting the importance of orchestration and UI/UX design in determining agent quality. In this paper, we evaluate six real-world crypto copilots on 1,200 diverse queries and report breakdowns across dimensions, tasks, and query categories. Our experiments show that most of the tested copilots achieve comparable aggregate scores, but differ more significantly on dimension-level and task-level performance. This pattern suggests meaningful trade-offs in decision support quality: users with different priorities may be better served by different copilots than the aggregate rankings alone would indicate. To support reproducible research, we open-source all LATTICE code and data used in this paper.