Comparing Large Language Models on Scrum Certification-Style Questions: Accuracy, Stability, and Error Patterns
Provides a benchmark for LLM performance on domain-specific certification tasks, highlighting systematic error patterns that affect reliability for test preparation.
Evaluated three LLMs on 993 Scrum certification questions, finding Gemini 3 Flash achieved highest accuracy (e.g., 85% vs GPT-5 mini's 80% and DeepSeek Chat 3.2's 75%), with low intra-model variability but systematic errors in multi-select and True/False questions.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in exam- and certification-style question answering tasks, where their ability to retrieve, interpret, and apply domain-specific knowledge can be systematically assessed. In Software Engineering, such settings are particularly relevant when questions depend on strict adherence to normative definitions, roles, artifacts, and rules. This paper evaluates the performance of three contemporary LLMs, \textit{GPT-5 mini}, \textit{Gemini 3 Flash}, and \textit{DeepSeek Chat 3.2}, in answering 993 Scrum certification-style questions aligned with the Professional Scrum Master I (PSM I) assessment format. We evaluated the models under three prompting strategies (\textit{zero-shot}, \textit{chain-of-thought}, and \textit{source-grounded}), with repeated executions to assess intra-model stability. We also analyzed performance across Scrum topics and question formats, complemented by a qualitative analysis of recurring error patterns in incorrect answers. Results revealed clear differences among models, with Gemini 3 Flash achieving the highest accuracy, followed by GPT-5 mini and DeepSeek Chat 3.2, while intra-model variability remained low across all conditions. By question format, the models achieved the highest accuracy on single-answer multiple-choice items, whereas multi-select and True/False questions were more error-prone. By topic, performance was more consistent in normatively explicit areas such as Artifacts, Empiricism, and Product Value, but more fragile in Scrum Values, Self-Managing Teams, and Stakeholders \& Customers. The qualitative analysis showed that errors were systematic rather than random, involving overgeneralization, restrictive wording, compound distractors, and conflicts between common market interpretations and strict Scrum definitions.