LMSYS Chatbot Arena Leaderboard 2026: Current LMArena Rankings, Official Link & How to Read It
Updated May 2026 — Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.6 / 4.7 thinking variants currently lead the LMArena Text leaderboard with Elo 1500+. The live top-10 snapshot is embedded below.
If you are searching for the LMSYS Chatbot Arena leaderboard, the current official destination is LMArena at lmarena.ai. It is the public successor to the original LMSYS Chatbot Arena and remains the most-cited live leaderboard for comparing large language models by blind human preference votes.
This page is designed as a practical gateway: where to find the current leaderboard, what the rankings mean, how Elo-style scores are calculated, which category leaderboard to read for your use case, and what the leaderboard does not tell you.
The important rule is simple: use LMArena as a live shortlist and ranking context, not as a final procurement answer. Check the official leaderboard for the latest positions, then cross-check the right category and run your own prompts before choosing a model.
What LMArena Is (And the LMSYS Backstory)
LMArena began life as the LMSYS Chatbot Arena, launched in mid-2023 by a group of academic researchers (Berkeley SkyLab, UCSD, CMU and others). The pitch was simple and deliberately provocative: stop ranking LLMs by static academic benchmarks that get gamed and contaminated, and start ranking them by what real users actually prefer when they cannot see which model is which.
The original site, hosted at chat.lmsys.org, asked you a question, sent your prompt to two anonymous models in parallel, and asked you to vote on which response was better. After the vote, the model identities were revealed. Aggregated across millions of votes, this produced a leaderboard.
In 2024 the project was rebranded to LMArena and moved to lmarena.ai, with the team spinning out as a company. The methodology stayed the same; the surface added more arenas (Vision, WebDev, Copilot, Search) and better leaderboard tools. By 2026 it has hundreds of models compared and tens of millions of cumulative votes — the largest blind-preference dataset in public AI evaluation.
View LMArena on ToolCenter for the live leaderboard and to vote yourself.
How the Ranking Is Actually Calculated
This is where most casual readers go wrong: LMArena does not use a "score". It uses a Bradley-Terry model (very close to chess Elo) over pairwise preference data.
The mechanics:
- You submit a prompt.
- Two anonymous models generate a response each, side by side.
- You pick: A is better, B is better, both tied, both bad.
- Identities are revealed after your vote.
- Each vote updates the relative rating of both models — winners gain points, losers lose them, with the magnitude depending on how surprising the result was.
The number you see in the leaderboard is a fitted rating, not a raw average. It is meant to be read like a chess rating: a 100-point gap means the higher-rated model is expected to win roughly 64% of head-to-head contests, a 200-point gap about 76%.
Two implications most people miss:
(a) The absolute number is not stable across resets. When the team adds new categories, changes the model pool, or refits the model, scores can shift across the board even if relative quality has not changed. Compare scores within the same snapshot, not across months.
(b) Confidence intervals are real, and at the top they are wide. The site shows a 95% CI on each rating. When the top three models have CIs that overlap by 30+ points, claiming the #1 model is "better" than the #2 model is not statistically supported. The honest read is "they are tied."
What Each Leaderboard Category Actually Measures
The Overall leaderboard gets the most attention. It is also the one most likely to mislead a use-case decision. Here is what each category really tells you:
Overall
All votes, all prompts, all categories combined. Useful for a vibe check, dangerous if you treat it as a one-number summary. The prompt distribution skews toward conversational and creative prompts — because those are what most volunteer voters submit. A model that wins Overall is a model that wins the median chat conversation, not necessarily the median engineering task.
Hard Prompts
A subset of harder, more reasoning-heavy prompts. Closer to a "capability" reading than Overall. If you care about a model's ceiling on tough questions, this matters more than Overall.
Coding
Pairwise votes on coding-related prompts. Reasonable proxy for one-shot coding ability in a chat context. Not a substitute for a real coding eval like Aider's polyglot benchmark, which measures multi-turn editing in actual repos — but it is a fast first filter.
Math
Math-tagged prompts. Same caveats as Coding: useful first filter, not a replacement for benchmarks like MATH-500 or AIME-style evals if you are choosing a model for serious math work.
Multi-Turn
Conversations rather than single-turn prompts. Important if your use case involves long context or sustained dialog — many models that look strong on single-turn prompts degrade in extended conversations.
Multilingual / Language-Specific
LMArena has language-specific leaderboards (Chinese, Korean, German, French, Japanese, etc.). These are the only easily-accessible blind-preference rankings for non-English performance. If you serve non-English users, this is the leaderboard to read first.
Style Control
This is the under-appreciated one. Style Control is a separate fit that statistically removes the effect of length, markdown, emojis, and formatting from the preference data. Models that win Overall partially because they answer at length with bolded headers tend to slip in Style Control. Models that lose Overall because their answers are terse but correct tend to rise. Style Control is the closest thing LMArena has to a pure capability ranking. Always check it before trusting Overall.
Vision Arena
Multimodal prompts (text + image input). Different leaderboard, different leaders. A model that dominates text Overall may not be the best vision model.
WebDev Arena
Models compete on building small web apps from prompts. A radically different skill from chat — the rankings here look nothing like Overall.
Search Arena and Copilot Arena
Newer additions for search-augmented and code-completion use cases respectively. Smaller sample sizes, but the only public leaderboards for those exact use cases.
Quick Reference: Which Leaderboard for Which Decision
| Your Decision | Leaderboard To Read |
|---|
| Default chatbot for general users | Overall + Style Control (cross-check) |
| Coding agent / IDE copilot | Coding + WebDev + Copilot Arena |
| Math tutor or research assistant | Hard Prompts + Math |
| Multimodal app (vision input) | Vision Arena |
| Non-English market | Language-specific leaderboard |
| Long-context or agentic system | Multi-Turn + Hard Prompts |
| Vendor "we are the best" claim | Style Control + 95% CI overlap check |
Strengths: Why LMArena Matters
It is easy to dunk on LMArena. It is harder to argue with what it actually does well.
Real human preference at scale. Static benchmarks get contaminated, gamed, or saturated. LMArena's prompts are a flowing distribution of what real people actually ask, refreshed continuously by the volunteer voter base. No single training set can fully target it.
Blind, paired comparisons. Removing brand bias matters. A model labeled "GPT-X" gets votes for being labeled "GPT-X" — a model labeled "Model A" gets voted on for the response itself. Blind A/B is the right experimental design for preference questions.
Public, free, fast. You can see the live leaderboard, vote yourself, and even use Direct Chat to talk to many models without an API key. As an inexpensive first filter for "is this new model worth my attention?", nothing beats it.
Specialized arenas. Vision Arena, WebDev Arena, Copilot Arena, and Search Arena let you check capabilities that the chat-focused Overall ranking would miss entirely. The team has been good about adding these as the field matures.
Limitations: Where LMArena Falls Short
Equally honest about the weaknesses, because using LMArena well requires understanding them.
Style bias. The original Overall ranking systematically favors longer, more formatted, more "ChatGPT-like" responses. The Style Control ranking partially fixes this, but most quoted rankings are still Overall.
Voter distribution. Volunteer voters are not a representative sample of all LLM users. They skew technical, English-speaking, and toward certain prompt types (coding, creative writing, casual chat). If your use case is "help a non-technical small business owner draft a customer email", the Overall leaderboard's voter distribution does not match yours.
No factuality or safety check. A model can be confidently wrong and still win votes for sounding good. LMArena measures preference, not truth. For factuality, hallucination rate, or safety behavior, you need other evals.
Cost-blind. LMArena ranks quality, not value. A model that is 30 Elo points higher but 10x more expensive may be the wrong default for production. Always layer pricing on top of LMArena rankings before committing to a vendor.
Goodhart's law risk. Once a metric matters, providers optimize for it. By 2026 there are credible reports of providers training on LMArena-style preference data, varying response style to win votes, or running A/B variants and submitting the best one. The benchmark team has pushed back on this with Style Control and integrity checks, but the cat-and-mouse dynamic is permanent.
Confidence intervals get ignored. The site clearly shows 95% CIs. People still write "Model X overtook Model Y this week" when both are tied within noise. Read the CIs.
How to Actually Use LMArena Without Getting Burned
Some practical heuristics from spending real time with the leaderboard:
1. Start with Style Control, not Overall. It is the more honest single ranking. If a model leads both Overall and Style Control, you can trust the rank. If it leads Overall but slips in Style Control, it is partly winning on style.
2. Cross-check with the right category for your use case. Your application is not "the average chat conversation". It is something more specific. Read the matching category.
3. Treat the top 5-10 models as a tier, not a ranking. Within that tier, decide by cost, latency, ecosystem, fine-tuning support, region availability, and your own offline tests — not by who is #1 today.
4. Run your own offline eval before deploying. Build a small set (50-200 prompts) that mirror your actual production traffic. Score them with a stronger model as judge or with humans. Use that as your real ranking. LMArena tells you which models are worth putting on your shortlist.
5. Check the date. Leaderboards move. A blog post from 6 months ago citing LMArena rankings is already stale.
Beyond the Leaderboard: What Else You Can Do on LMArena
LMArena is more than its leaderboard. The site itself is a useful daily tool:
- Battle mode — submit a prompt, get two anonymous responses, vote. The contributing-back option.
- Side-by-Side — pick two specific models you want to compare and run the same prompt through both. Great for evaluating "should I switch from model A to model B?" without setting up your own harness.
- Direct Chat — talk to a single model directly through the LMArena interface. No API key, no sign-up. Quickest way to try a brand-new model the day it shows up on the leaderboard.
- Vision Arena — same modes but with image input.
- WebDev Arena — submit a "build a small web app that does X" prompt and watch two models compete.
For a developer evaluating a new model, the Side-by-Side and Direct Chat tools alone are worth bookmarking.
Alternatives and Complements
LMArena is the dominant preference leaderboard but not the only useful eval. Pair it with:
- LMSYS Chatbot Arena Leaderboard — the historical/archival entry point, still useful for tracking trends.
- Aider's polyglot leaderboard — agentic, multi-language coding eval that actually edits real files. Far more predictive of production coding agent quality than chat-style Coding.
- MMLU-Pro, GPQA Diamond, MATH-500 — academic benchmarks for capability ceilings.
- MTEB — for embeddings, not chat models, but the equivalent canonical leaderboard.
- Your own offline eval — non-negotiable for any production deployment. LMArena cannot tell you how a model will behave on your prompts.
- Design Arena — same blind-pairwise idea applied to design generation, useful as an analog if you are evaluating image or design tools.
Bottom Line
LMArena is the single most useful public LLM leaderboard available. It is also the single most-misquoted one. The right way to use it is as a shortlist generator and tier-checker, not as a definitive ranking — and always to read Style Control alongside Overall, the category that matches your use case alongside both, and the 95% confidence intervals before claiming any model "won".
If you do that, LMArena will save you a lot of wasted time evaluating models that are clearly behind the frontier. If you do not, you will end up making procurement decisions based on a 12-point Elo gap that is statistically indistinguishable from zero.
Try LMArena yourself — vote on a few prompts, look at Style Control, and check the confidence intervals on the top tier. Five minutes of doing this teaches more than another think-piece on which model is "the best".
Last updated: April 2026. LMArena rankings move continuously — check the live leaderboard at lmarena.ai before citing any specific position. This review is informational and not affiliated with LMArena, LMSYS, or any model provider.
