OSWorld
BenchmarkFreeReal OS benchmark for multimodal computer agents.
Capabilities11 decomposed
real-environment multimodal task execution evaluation
Medium confidenceEvaluates multimodal AI agents by executing open-ended computer tasks on actual operating systems (Ubuntu, Windows, macOS) with real applications, file systems, and GUI interactions. Uses custom execution-based evaluation scripts per task that verify task completion against initial state setup configurations, enabling reproducible assessment of agent performance on authentic desktop workflows without simulation or constraint.
Uses actual operating system environments with real applications rather than simulated GUIs or constrained task spaces — agents must interact with authentic Ubuntu, Windows, and macOS desktops, file systems, and application ecosystems. Custom per-task evaluation scripts verify completion against detailed initial state configurations, enabling reproducible execution-based scoring without human judgment.
More ecologically valid than screenshot-only benchmarks (e.g., ScreenSpot, WebShop) because it tests agents on real multi-application workflows with actual file I/O and OS-level operations, not isolated web pages or simulated interfaces.
cross-operating-system task standardization and execution
Medium confidenceProvides unified task execution framework across Ubuntu, Windows, and macOS by standardizing task definitions, initial state setup, and evaluation scripts for each OS variant. Abstracts OS-specific differences in file paths, application availability, and GUI rendering while maintaining task semantic equivalence, allowing single benchmark to assess agent generalization across heterogeneous desktop environments.
Standardizes task definitions and evaluation across three major operating systems (Ubuntu, Windows, macOS) with custom per-OS setup and evaluation scripts, enabling single benchmark to measure agent generalization across heterogeneous desktop environments rather than testing on a single OS.
Broader OS coverage than most desktop automation benchmarks which typically focus on single OS (e.g., Windows-only or Linux-only), enabling assessment of agent portability across enterprise environments.
community engagement and documentation resources
Medium confidenceMaintains comprehensive documentation including research paper, code repository, slides, and community channels (Discord, Twitter) for benchmark usage, contribution, and discussion. Provides multiple formats for learning benchmark methodology and engaging with research community.
Provides multi-channel community engagement (Discord, Twitter, GitHub) and comprehensive documentation (paper, code, slides) enabling researchers to learn methodology, ask questions, and contribute improvements.
More accessible than closed benchmarks because open documentation and community channels enable broader adoption and contribution; Discord and Twitter provide multiple engagement paths beyond GitHub.
screenshot-based visual grounding and gui element understanding
Medium confidenceEvaluates agent capability to visually ground interface elements from screenshots and understand GUI layouts, button positions, text fields, and application state. Agents receive screenshot images as input and must interpret visual information to determine next actions, testing multimodal understanding of desktop interfaces without explicit element annotations or accessibility trees.
Evaluates pure visual grounding without providing element annotations, accessibility trees, or semantic markup — agents must infer UI structure and element locations from raw screenshot pixels, testing genuine visual understanding rather than structured data parsing.
More challenging than benchmarks providing DOM trees or accessibility APIs (e.g., WebShop with HTML), forcing agents to develop robust visual understanding rather than relying on structured interface metadata.
multi-application workflow task composition
Medium confidenceDefines and evaluates complex tasks requiring agents to coordinate actions across multiple applications (web browsers, file managers, text editors, desktop apps) within single workflow. Tasks test agent ability to maintain context across application switches, transfer data between apps, and sequence operations across heterogeneous tools to accomplish higher-level goals.
Explicitly tests multi-application workflows where agents must switch between different desktop and web applications, maintain context across app boundaries, and coordinate data transfer — going beyond single-app task execution to assess real-world productivity automation scenarios.
More realistic than single-application benchmarks (e.g., web-only or file-manager-only) because real desktop work involves coordinating multiple tools; tests agent ability to maintain context and plan across application boundaries.
file system operations and i/o task execution
Medium confidenceEvaluates agent capability to perform file system operations including file creation, deletion, copying, moving, renaming, and directory navigation. Tests agent understanding of file paths, directory hierarchies, file permissions, and ability to locate files by name or content, verifying task completion through file system state inspection.
Includes file system operations as core evaluation domain, testing agent understanding of directory hierarchies, file paths, and I/O operations through actual file system state inspection rather than simulated file operations.
Tests real file I/O against actual file systems rather than mocked file operations, ensuring agents understand genuine file system semantics and can handle edge cases like permission errors or path resolution.
reproducible task setup and evaluation scripting
Medium confidenceProvides per-task initial state configurations and custom evaluation scripts that verify task completion deterministically. Each task includes detailed setup instructions to establish consistent initial OS state and evaluation logic that checks whether agent actions resulted in desired outcome, enabling reproducible benchmarking without human judgment or manual verification.
Provides custom per-task evaluation scripts and detailed initial state configurations that enable fully reproducible, automated task completion verification without human judgment — each task has deterministic success criteria defined in executable code.
More reproducible than human-judged benchmarks because evaluation is automated and deterministic; enables continuous integration testing and precise result comparison across model versions.
baseline human performance measurement
Medium confidenceEstablishes human baseline by having human evaluators complete benchmark tasks on the same OS environments and measuring success rate (72.36% documented). Provides ground truth for agent performance comparison and identifies task difficulty ceiling, enabling assessment of whether agent performance gaps reflect task difficulty or model limitations.
Establishes human baseline on identical OS environments and tasks, providing direct comparison point for agent performance rather than relying on proxy metrics or assumed human capability.
More meaningful than benchmarks without human baselines because 72.36% human success rate provides context for interpreting 12.24% agent performance — shows 60+ point gap reflects genuine capability limitations rather than task impossibility.
benchmark dataset curation and versioning
Medium confidenceMaintains curated dataset of 369 tasks derived from real-world computer use cases with version control and community feedback integration. Recent OSWorld-Verified release (2025-07-28) incorporates community-reported fixes and improvements, enabling continuous benchmark quality enhancement while maintaining historical comparability through versioning.
Maintains versioned, community-curated dataset with explicit quality improvement process (OSWorld-Verified release) rather than static benchmark — enables continuous refinement while preserving historical comparability.
More maintainable than one-off benchmarks because versioning and community feedback integration enable long-term quality improvement; OSWorld-Verified release shows commitment to fixing identified issues.
aws-accelerated evaluation infrastructure
Medium confidenceProvides AWS integration for distributed task execution reducing full benchmark evaluation time to approximately 1 hour (as of 2025-07-28 upgrade). Abstracts infrastructure complexity and enables researchers without local multi-OS environments to evaluate agents at scale, though self-hosted evaluation on local Ubuntu/Windows/macOS remains supported.
Provides AWS integration for distributed evaluation reducing benchmark time to ~1 hour, enabling researchers without local multi-OS hardware to evaluate agents at scale while maintaining support for self-hosted evaluation.
Faster than self-hosted evaluation for researchers without multi-OS infrastructure; enables rapid iteration on agent improvements without requiring expensive local hardware.
interactive benchmark data viewer and exploration
Medium confidenceProvides web-based data viewer for exploring benchmark tasks, initial states, evaluation scripts, and results interactively. Enables researchers to inspect individual task definitions, understand evaluation methodology, and analyze failure patterns without downloading full dataset or running evaluation infrastructure.
Provides interactive web-based viewer for exploring 361 benchmark tasks without requiring local evaluation infrastructure, enabling researchers to understand task definitions and failure patterns through visual exploration.
More accessible than command-line or programmatic access because web interface requires no setup; enables non-technical stakeholders to understand benchmark composition and task difficulty.
Capabilities are decomposed by AI analysis. Each maps to specific user intents and improves with match feedback.
Related Artifactssharing capabilities
Artifacts that share capabilities with OSWorld, ranked by overlap. Discovered automatically through the match graph.
AgentBench
8-environment benchmark for evaluating LLM agents.
xCodeEval
Multilingual code evaluation across 17 languages.
11-777: MultiModal Machine Learning (Fall 2022) - Carnegie Mellon University

ZeroEval
Zero-shot LLM evaluation for reasoning tasks.
AgentBench
A Comprehensive Benchmark to Evaluate LLMs as Agents (ICLR'24)
Octo
Generalist robot policy model from Open X-Embodiment.
Best For
- ✓AI research teams evaluating multimodal agent capabilities
- ✓Organizations building autonomous desktop agents and need objective performance baselines
- ✓Model developers assessing GUI grounding and operational reasoning improvements
- ✓Teams building OS-agnostic desktop automation tools
- ✓Researchers studying transfer learning and generalization in multimodal agents
- ✓Organizations deploying agents across heterogeneous enterprise environments
- ✓Researchers implementing agents and needing detailed benchmark documentation
- ✓Teams contributing to benchmark improvements and community
Known Limitations
- ⚠No train/dev/test split specified — unclear if data contamination prevention exists or if all 369 tasks are evaluation-only
- ⚠Exact scoring function unknown — likely binary success/failure per task but partial credit methodology unspecified
- ⚠8 tasks require Google Drive access introducing external service dependencies and manual configuration overhead
- ⚠No statistical significance testing or confidence intervals provided for baseline comparisons
- ⚠Task complexity distribution and long-horizon planning requirements not documented
- ⚠Sandboxing and isolation mechanisms not specified — unclear if task execution is fully isolated between runs
Requirements
Input / Output
UnfragileRank
UnfragileRank is computed from adoption signals, documentation quality, ecosystem connectivity, match graph feedback, and freshness. No artifact can pay for a higher rank.
About
Benchmark for evaluating multimodal agents on real computer tasks across Ubuntu, Windows, and macOS using actual operating systems, testing file management, application use, and multi-app workflows with screenshot understanding.
Categories
Alternatives to OSWorld
Build high-quality LLM apps - from prototyping, testing to production deployment and monitoring.
Compare →Amplication brings order to the chaos of large-scale software development by creating Golden Paths for developers - streamlined workflows that drive consistency, enable high-quality code practices, simplify onboarding, and accelerate standardized delivery across teams.
Compare →Are you the builder of OSWorld?
Claim this artifact to get a verified badge, access match analytics, see which intents users search for, and manage your listing.
Get the weekly brief
New tools, rising stars, and what's actually worth your time. No spam.
Data Sources
Looking for something else?
Search →