Why leaderboards fall short in measuring AI model value

Leaderboards are a widely accepted method for comparing the performance of AI models. Typically built around standardized tasks and publicly available datasets, they provide an easily digestible view of how various models stack up against one another. While they do offer some insights, leaderboards actually aren’t the best metric for determining a model’s effectiveness in the real world. And in many cases, placing too much emphasis on leaderboard performance can obscure more meaningful evaluations. 

Here’s why… 

1. Test optimization doesn’t equal production readiness 

AI developers often optimize models specifically to excel at benchmark tests, a process similar to teaching for the test. While this can produce impressive leaderboard scores, it often comes at the cost of general applicability. A model tuned to perform exceptionally well on a specific dataset may fail to operate effectively in environments it wasn’t trained for. Just as a student might ace a standardized test without grasping the broader subject matter, AI models can achieve high marks on benchmarks without possessing robust, real-world capabilities. 

2. Narrow benchmarks miss broader needs 

Benchmark datasets are typically task-specific, measuring a narrow band of capabilities. However, real-world AI applications require models to perform across diverse, often unpredictable scenarios. For example, a model trained on a licensing exam question bank in the medical domain might score highly but struggle to support nuanced clinical decisions in practice. Generalizability suffers when benchmarks are treated as end goals rather than tools for incremental progress, especially in regulated sectors like healthcare, finance and law. 

3. Benchmark contamination skews results 

Recent research has uncovered that some leading language models have had prior exposure to the benchmark datasets against which they are tested. This practice, known as data leakage, compromises the validity of their scores. One notable study showed that a model was able to predict missing answer options with unexpectedly high accuracy, raising concerns that it had effectively “seen” the test before (National Library of Medicine). These kinds of contamination issues cast doubt on the objectivity and fairness of benchmark-based assessments. 

4. Gaming the system undermines integrity 

There’s growing incentive for organizations to climb public leaderboards — not just for prestige, but also for funding and validation. This has led to practices where models are explicitly trained to overfit benchmark answers, blurring the line between genuine reasoning and rote memorization. While some leaderboard curators attempt to police such behavior, there’s no foolproof way to prevent manipulation. The result is an environment where model rankings may reflect clever engineering rather than authentic intelligence or utility. 

5. Assumptions about dataset accuracy are risky 

Leaderboards inherently assume the datasets they use are accurate and relevant. Yet, benchmark data often contains outdated information, inaccuracies or inherent biases. Take healthcare AI as an example — medical knowledge evolves rapidly, and a dataset from several years ago might be obsolete when it comes to current standards of care. Despite this, outdated benchmarks continue to be used because of their widespread integration into testing pipelines, leading to evaluations based on outdated criteria. 

6. Real-world considerations are often ignored 

A high leaderboard score doesn’t tell you how well a model will perform in production environments. Critical factors such as system latency, resource consumption, data security, compliance with legal standards and licensing terms are often overlooked. It’s not uncommon for teams to adopt a high-ranking model, only to later discover it’s based on restricted datasets or incompatible licenses. These deployment realities play a huge role in determining a model’s viability in practice far more than a leaderboard ranking does. 

While leaderboards provide useful signals, especially for academic benchmarking, they should be considered just one part of a larger evaluation framework. A more comprehensive approach should include testing with real-world, domain-specific datasets; assessing robustness against edge cases and unexpected inputs; auditing for fairness, accountability and ethical alignment; measuring operational efficiency and scalability; and engaging domain experts for human-in-the-loop evaluation. 

Ultimately, leaderboards are a useful but limited tool for gauging AI progress. True AI value comes from how models perform in the complex, nuanced environments where they are deployed. John Snow Labs is consistently at the top of the leaderboards, outperforming the most popular general-purpose models, including OpenAI’s GPT-4.5. And still, my advice to enterprise leaders is to focus less on leaderboard status and more on comprehensive, purpose-driven evaluation strategies that reflect the real-world conditions in which their models must thrive.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?