Benchmark Almanac

CyberGym

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 99.4% leads since September 2026
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 99.4% leads since September 2026
In use

Large-scale benchmark of real open-source vulnerabilities. Agent must reproduce each known vulnerability with a proof-of-concept input.

1,507 instances from 188 open-source projects. Agents write proof-of-concept inputs that reproduce a described vulnerability. Four difficulty levels, with the public board on Level 1. Part of the UC Berkeley RDI Frontier AI Cybersecurity Observatory beside ExploitGym and CyberGym-E2E.

Released
June 2025
Kind
Finding and exploiting real bugs
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 5 #10 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
October 2026
Last model added
October 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

AI agents have significant potential to reshape cybersecurity, making a thorough assessment of their capabilities critical. However, existing evaluations fall short, because they are based on small-scale benchmarks and only measure static outcomes, failing to capture the full, dynamic range of real-world security challenges. To address these limitations, we introduce CyberGym, a large-scale benchmark featuring 1,507 real-world vulnerabilities across 188 software projects. Adjustable to different vulnerability analysis settings, CyberGym primarily tasks agents with generating a proof-of-concept test that reproduces a vulnerability, given only its text description and the corresponding codebase. Our extensive evaluation highlights that CyberGym effectively differentiates agents' and models' cybersecurity capabilities. Even the top-performing combinations only achieve a ~20% success rate, demonstrating the overall difficulty of CyberGym. Beyond static benchmarking, we show that CyberGym leads to the discovery of 34 zero-day vulnerabilities and 18 historically incomplete patches. These results underscore that CyberGym is not only a robust benchmark for measuring AI's progress in cybersecurity but also a platform for creating direct, real-world security impact.

Abstract of CyberGym: Evaluating AI Agents' Real-World Cybersecurity Capabilities at Scale (arXiv:2506.02548, CC0)
61
Entries on its own leaderboard, 34 models we track
17
Launch posts list it, from 11 labs
23
System cards report it, from 10 labs

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads with 99.4% among models released by September 2026

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads with 99.4%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

The newest model with a score here came out in September 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

61 entries. Scroll sideways for the rest.

  1. 99.4 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
  2. 99.2 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, Abliterated GLM-5.2)
  3. 98.5 Multi-model (Creation Model, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Qwen 3.8 Max)
  4. 98.0 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, OrcaCyber-Zero-1.0)
  5. 97.3 elliot-rdt-v1
  6. 97.2 GLM-5.3
  7. 97.1 DeepSeek-V4-Flash
  8. 96.7 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2, GLM-5.3, GLM-5.3-Flash)
  9. 96.6 Hero (finetuned from GLM-5.2)
  10. 95.4 DeepSeek-V4-Pro
  11. 95.3 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Creation Model, Qwen 3.8 Max)
  12. 94.2 Claude Opus 5
  13. 94.2 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, GLM-5.3, GLM-5.3-Flash)
  14. 93.8 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, GPT-5.6-Luna, GLM-5.3)
  15. 92.4 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2)
  16. 92.3 JT236B
  17. 91.8 Qwen-Internal
  18. 91.3 Multi-model (Grok 4.5, Grok 4.6)
  19. 91.0 Claude Opus 4.6
  20. 91.0 Multi-model (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6)
  21. 90.9 Multi-model (GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.6)
  22. 90.8 GLM-5.2
  23. 88.9 XekRung-1.5-27B-Preview (finetuned from Qwen3.8-27B)
  24. 86.3 Multi-model (MAI-Cyber-1-Flash, GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6)
  25. 86.3 Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber
  26. 85.9 ASL-Cyber-Flash (finetuned from DeepSeek-V4-Flash)
  27. 85.6 GPT-5.5-Cyber
  28. 85.3 XekRung
  29. 84.4 Feyospace-v1.1 (finetuned from Qwen3.8-27B)
  30. 84.0 GLM-5.1
  31. 83.1 Claude Mythos Preview
  32. 81.8 GPT-5.5
  33. 80.0 Basin (basin1-0912-pre-dpo)
  34. 79.7 Grok 4.6
  35. 79.0 GPT-5.4
  36. 79.0 Grok 4.5
  37. 73.1 MiniMax-M3
  38. 68.9 GLM-5.1-FP8
  39. 65.2 Claude Sonnet 4.6
  40. 63.0 Feyospace-v1
  41. 60.2 GPT-5
  42. 59.0 Muse Spark 1.1 (helpful-only)
  43. 51.2 Feyospace-v0
  44. 50.6 Claude Opus 4.5
  45. 43.5 Muse Spark
  46. 43.2 GLM-5
  47. 41.3 Kimi K2.5
  48. 38.8 Gemini 3.1 Pro
  49. 28.9 Claude Sonnet 4.5
  50. 25.0 Claude Opus 4.1
  51. 23.5 GLM-4.7
  52. 22.6 Claude Sonnet 4
  53. 14.5 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  54. 9.36 GPT-4.1
  55. 4.84 Gemini 2.5 Flash
  56. 3.58 DeepSeek-V3
  57. 2.46 o4-mini
  58. 1.99 R2EGym-32B-Agent
  59. 1.86 Qwen3-235B-A22B
  60. 1.66 openhands-lm-32b-v0.1
  61. 0.07 SWE-Gym-32B
  1. 1 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash dynamic 99.4%
  2. 2 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, Abliterated GLM-5.2) dynamic 99.2%
  3. 3 Multi-model (Creation Model, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Qwen 3.8 Max) dynamic 98.5%
  4. 4 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, OrcaCyber-Zero-1.0) dynamic 98%
  5. 5 elliot-rdt-v1 dynamic, test-time mem. 97.3%
  6. 6 GLM-5.3 dynamic 97.2%
  7. 7 DeepSeek-V4-Flash dynamic 97.1%
  8. 8 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2, GLM-5.3, GLM-5.3-Flash) dynamic 96.7%
  9. 9 Hero (finetuned from GLM-5.2) dynamic, test-time mem. 96.6%
  10. 10 DeepSeek-V4-Pro dynamic 95.4%
  11. 11 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Creation Model, Qwen 3.8 Max) dynamic 95.3%
  12. 12 Claude Opus 5 94.2%
  13. 13 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, GLM-5.3, GLM-5.3-Flash) dynamic 94.2%
  14. 14 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, GPT-5.6-Luna, GLM-5.3) dynamic 93.8%
  15. 15 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2) dynamic 92.4%
  16. 16 JT236B dynamic 92.3%
  17. 17 Qwen-Internal 91.8%
  18. 18 Multi-model (Grok 4.5, Grok 4.6) dynamic 91.3%
  19. 19 Claude Opus 4.6 dynamic 91%
  20. 20 Multi-model (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6) 91%
  21. 21 Multi-model (GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.6) 90.9%
  22. 22 GLM-5.2 dynamic 90.8%
  23. 23 XekRung-1.5-27B-Preview (finetuned from Qwen3.8-27B) 88.9%
  24. 24 Multi-model (MAI-Cyber-1-Flash, GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6) 86.3%
  25. 25 Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber 86.3%
  26. 26 ASL-Cyber-Flash (finetuned from DeepSeek-V4-Flash) dynamic 85.9%
  27. 27 GPT-5.5-Cyber 85.6%
  28. 28 XekRung 85.3%
  29. 29 Feyospace-v1.1 (finetuned from Qwen3.8-27B) 84.4%
  30. 30 GLM-5.1 dynamic 84%
  31. 31 Claude Mythos Preview 83.1%
  32. 32 GPT-5.5 81.8%
  33. 33 Basin (basin1-0912-pre-dpo) 80%
  34. 34 Grok 4.6 79.7%
  35. 35 GPT-5.4 79%
  36. 36 Grok 4.5 79%
  37. 37 MiniMax-M3 73.1%
  38. 38 GLM-5.1-FP8 dynamic 68.9%
  39. 39 Claude Sonnet 4.6 65.2%
  40. 40 Feyospace-v1 63%
  41. 41 GPT-5 dynamic 60.2%
  42. 42 Muse Spark 1.1 (helpful-only) 59%
  43. 43 Feyospace-v0 51.2%
  44. 44 Claude Opus 4.5 50.6%
  45. 45 Muse Spark 43.5%
  46. 46 GLM-5 43.2%
  47. 47 Kimi K2.5 41.3%
  48. 48 Gemini 3.1 Pro 38.8%
  49. 49 Claude Sonnet 4.5 28.9%
  50. 50 Claude Opus 4.1 25%
  51. 51 GLM-4.7 23.5%
  52. 52 Claude Sonnet 4 22.6%
  53. 53 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 14.5%
  54. 54 GPT-4.1 9.36%
  55. 55 Gemini 2.5 Flash Apr 2025 4.84%
  56. 56 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 3.58%
  57. 57 o4-mini 2.46%
  58. 58 R2EGym-32B-Agent 1.99%
  59. 59 Qwen3-235B-A22B 1.86%
  60. 60 openhands-lm-32b-v0.1 1.66%
  61. 61 SWE-Gym-32B 0.07%

Source: Official CyberGym leaderboard

Sources: Official CyberGym leaderboard and labs’ model cards

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 99.4% dynamic, TuLongFeng Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, Abliterated GLM-5.2) 99.2% dynamic, Lyrie Agent Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Multi-model (Creation Model, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Qwen 3.8 Max) 98.5% dynamic, Creation (天工) Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, OrcaCyber-Zero-1.0) 98% dynamic, OrcaCyber Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
5 elliot-rdt-v1 97.3% dynamic, test-time mem., elliot-v1 Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GLM-5.3 97.2% dynamic, Sangfor AI Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-V4-Flash 97.1% dynamic, Ostorlab Neutron Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2, GLM-5.3, GLM-5.3-Flash) 96.7% dynamic, NPC Agent System Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Hero (finetuned from GLM-5.2) 96.6% dynamic, test-time mem., Hero Agent Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
10 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 95.4% dynamic, Panshi (磐石) Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Creation Model, Qwen 3.8 Max) 95.3% dynamic, Creation (天工) Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Claude Opus 5 94.2% AWS Continuum Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, GLM-5.3, GLM-5.3-Flash) 94.2% dynamic, ai-deep-audit Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, GPT-5.6-Luna, GLM-5.3) 93.8% dynamic, Li-Argus Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2) 92.4% dynamic, Ji Realm (极境) Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
16 JT236B 92.3% dynamic, JiuXuan (九玄) Oct 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Qwen-Internal 91.8% Spur Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
18 Multi-model (Grok 4.5, Grok 4.6) 91.3% dynamic, Gcsa Agent Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
19 Claude Opus 4.6 91% dynamic, mneme Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
20 Multi-model (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6) 91% MDASH Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
21 Multi-model (GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.6) 90.9% Wiz Atlas Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
22 GLM-5.2 90.8% dynamic, DoGNAVY Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
23 XekRung-1.5-27B-Preview (finetuned from Qwen3.8-27B) 88.9% XekRung Agent Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
24 Multi-model (MAI-Cyber-1-Flash, GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6) 86.3% MDASH Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
25 Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber 86.3% Google Antigravity Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
26 ASL-Cyber-Flash (finetuned from DeepSeek-V4-Flash) 85.9% dynamic, Claude Code Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
27 GPT-5.5-Cyber 85.6% OpenAI Agent Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
28 XekRung 85.3% Velldepth Agent Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
29 Feyospace-v1.1 (finetuned from Qwen3.8-27B) 84.4% Claude Code Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
30 GLM-5.1 84% dynamic, Xuanwu Atuin AI Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
31 Claude Mythos Preview 83.1% Anthropic Agent Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
32 GPT-5.5 81.8% OpenAI Agent Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
33 Basin (basin1-0912-pre-dpo) 80% Codex CLI Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
34 Grok 4.6 79.7% Grok Build Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
35 GPT-5.4 79% OpenAI Agent Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
36 Grok 4.5 79% Grok Build Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
37 MiniMax-M3 73.1% MopMonk Agent Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
38 GLM-5.1-FP8 68.9% dynamic, Whitzard (白泽) Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
39 Claude Sonnet 4.6 65.2% Anthropic Agent Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
40 Feyospace-v1 63% Claude Code Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
41 GPT-5 60.2% dynamic, SageAgent Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
42 Muse Spark 1.1 (helpful-only) 59% Meta Agent Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
43 Feyospace-v0 51.2% Claude Code Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
44 Claude Opus 4.5 50.6% Anthropic Agent Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
45 Muse Spark 43.5% Meta Agent Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
46 GLM-5 43.2% Claude Code Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
47 Kimi K2.5 41.3% Kimi Agent Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
48 Gemini 3.1 Pro 38.8% Gemini CLI Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
49 Claude Sonnet 4.5 28.9% Anthropic Agent Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
50 Claude Opus 4.1 25% Anthropic Agent Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
51 GLM-4.7 23.5% Claude Code Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
52 Claude Sonnet 4 22.6% Anthropic Agent May 2025 Official leaderboard
53 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 14.5% Anthropic Agent Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
54 GPT-4.1 9.36% OpenHands Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
55 Gemini 2.5 Flash Apr 2025 4.84% OpenHands Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
56 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 3.58% OpenHands Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
57 o4-mini 2.46% OpenHands Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
58 R2EGym-32B-Agent 1.99% OpenHands Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
59 Qwen3-235B-A22B 1.86% OpenHands Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
60 openhands-lm-32b-v0.1 1.66% OpenHands Mar 2024 Official leaderboard
61 SWE-Gym-32B 0.07% OpenHands May 2025 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 99.4% dynamic, TuLongFeng Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GLM-5.3 97.2% dynamic, Sangfor AI Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
3 DeepSeek-V4-Flash 97.1% dynamic, Ostorlab Neutron Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
4 MAI-Cyber-1-Flash 96% Jul 2026 Lab model card
5 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 95.4% dynamic, Panshi (磐石) Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Opus 5 94.2% AWS Continuum Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
7 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 94% Sep 2026 Lab model card
8 Claude Opus 4.6 91% dynamic, mneme Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
9 GLM-5.2 90.8% dynamic, DoGNAVY Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Muse Wonder Full 88.4% Oct 2026 Lab model card
11 Ling-3.1-flash 87.9% Oct 2026 Lab model card
12 Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber 86.3% Google Antigravity Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Step 5 Preview 84.7% Sep 2026 Lab model card
14 GLM-5.1 84% dynamic, Xuanwu Atuin AI Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
15 GPT-5.6 Sol 83.6% Jun 2026 Lab model card
16 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 83.3% Aug 2026 Lab model card
17 Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber 83.2% Jul 2026 Lab model card
18 Claude Mythos Preview 83.1% Anthropic Agent Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
19 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 82.2% Oct 2026 Lab model card
20 GPT-5.5 81.8% OpenAI Agent Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
21 Muse Spark 1.3 80.5% Oct 2026 Lab model card
22 Grok 4.5 80.4% Jul 2026 Lab model card
23 Grok 4.7 80.3% Sep 2026 Lab model card
24 Grok 4.6 79.7% Grok Build Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
25 GPT-5.4 79% OpenAI Agent Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
26 Claude Opus 4.8 78.8% May 2026 Lab model card
27 Tencent Hy4 preview 78.4% Aug 2026 Lab model card
28 DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 76.7% Jul 2026 Lab model card
29 DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Vision-Exp 75.3% Aug 2026 Lab model card
30 MiniMax-M3 73.1% MopMonk Agent Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
31 Claude Opus 4.7 73% Apr 2026 Lab model card
32 Seed2.1 Pro 70.2% Jun 2026 Lab model card
33 Claude Sonnet 4.6 65.2% Anthropic Agent Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
34 GPT-5 60.2% dynamic, SageAgent Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
35 Muse Spark 1.1 59% Jul 2026 Lab model card
36 Claude Sonnet 5 52.7% Jun 2026 Lab model card
37 Claude Opus 4.5 50.6% Anthropic Agent Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
38 Muse Spark 43.5% Meta Agent Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
39 GLM-5 43.2% Claude Code Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
40 Kimi K2.5 41.3% Kimi Agent Jan 2026 Official leaderboard
41 Gemini 3.1 Pro 38.8% Gemini CLI Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
42 Claude Sonnet 4.5 28.9% Anthropic Agent Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
43 Claude Opus 4.1 25% Anthropic Agent Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
44 GLM-4.7 23.5% Claude Code Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
45 Claude Sonnet 4 22.6% Anthropic Agent May 2025 Official leaderboard
46 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 14.5% Anthropic Agent Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
47 GPT-4.1 9.36% OpenHands Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
48 Gemini 2.5 Flash Apr 2025 4.84% OpenHands Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
49 DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 3.58% OpenHands Mar 2025 Official leaderboard
50 o4-mini 2.46% OpenHands Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
51 R2EGym-32B-Agent 1.99% OpenHands Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
52 Qwen3-235B-A22B 1.86% OpenHands Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
53 openhands-lm-32b-v0.1 1.66% OpenHands Mar 2024 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 34 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

7 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in June 2025 7 models have held number one with claims included since its release in June 2025

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

Anthropic OpenAI DeepSeek Z.ai Microsoft
Own leaderboard Passed 85% in Feb 2026, by Claude Opus 4.6
Lab claims Passed 85% in Jul 2026, by MAI-Cyber-1-Flash

Sources: Official CyberGym leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Claude Opus 4.6 on the official leaderboard passed 85% in February 2026

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Claude Opus 4.6 GPT-5 Claude Opus 4.1 Claude 3.7 Sonnet R2EGym-32B-Agent openhands-lm-32b-v0.1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Claude Opus 4.6

Sources: Official CyberGym leaderboard and labs’ model cards

9 labs put it in a launch post in the last six months

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

Moonshot AI
Z.ai
OpenAI
Google DeepMind
Microsoft
DeepSeek
Tencent
StepFun
Xiaomi Corp
Ant Group
MiniMax
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Oct 19, 2026 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 82.2 CyberGym
Oct 13, 2026 Ling-3.1-flash 87.9 CyberGym
Sep 22, 2026 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 94 CyberGym
Sep 20, 2026 Step 5 Preview 84.7 CyberGym
Sep 10, 2026 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 88.1 CyberGym (Pass@1)
Sep 2, 2026 Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber 86.2 CyberGym Pass@1, vulnerability discovery in C/C++
Aug 28, 2026 Tencent Hy4 preview 78.4 CyberGym
Aug 21, 2026 DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Vision-Exp 75.3 Cybergym
Aug 14, 2026 GLM-5.3 84.5 CyberGym
Aug 13, 2026 DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 83.3 Cybergym
Jul 31, 2026 DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 76.7 Cybergym
Jul 27, 2026 MAI-Cyber-1-Flash 90.4 CyberGym Target (Any-of), MDASH with MAI-Cyber-1-Flash and GPT-5.4 (any-crash 96%)
Jul 21, 2026 Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber 83.2 Success Rate on CyberGym (pass@1), in CodeMender (max 5 model calls)
Apr 23, 2026 GPT-5.5 81.8 CyberGym
Apr 7, 2026 GLM-5.1 68.7 CyberGym
Feb 11, 2026 GLM-5 43.2 CyberGym
Jan 27, 2026 Kimi K2.5 41.3 CyberGym

23 system cards report it, from 10 labs

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Oct 23, 2026 Muse Spark 1.3 system card 80.5 CyberGym pass@1, Muse Spark 1.3 (Helpful) max, 2.5h timeout (Table 1, Figure 8). xhigh = 77.6 Cyber risk
Oct 12, 2026 Muse Wonder Full model card 88.4 CyberGym, Muse Wonder Full (Cyber Capability Evaluations table, section 4) Cyber risk
Sep 22, 2026 MiMo-V2.6 Pro technical report 94 CyberGym (Table 3) Cyber risk
Sep 21, 2026 Grok 4.7 model card 80.3 CyberGym, mean reproduced, high, unrestricted, Grok Build harness (6.1) Cyber risk
Sep 10, 2026 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash technical report 88.1 CyberGym (Pass@1) (Table 3) Cyber risk
Aug 12, 2026 Grok 4.6 model card 79.7 CyberGym, mean reproduced, high, unrestricted, Grok Build harness (7.1) Cyber risk
Jul 27, 2026 MAI-Cyber-1-Flash model card 96 CyberGym inside codename MDASH with MAI-Cyber-1 replacing 80% of MDASH models, up from 88.4%, system score not model-only (Section 3) Cyber risk
Jul 14, 2026 Grok 4.5 model card 80.4 CyberGym, mean reproduced, high, unrestricted (7.1) Cyber risk
Jul 9, 2026 GPT-5.6 Sol system card 83.6 CyberGym success rate without safeguards and without jailbreak, printed chart label (Figure 48, 9.4.4) Cyber risk
Jul 9, 2026 Muse Spark 1.1 system card 59 CyberGym pass@1, full 1,507-task suite (Table 1, Figure 10) Cyber risk
Jun 30, 2026 Claude Sonnet 5 system card 52.7 CyberGym targeted vulnerability reproduction, pass@1 over 1,507 tasks, any crash 65.4%, safeguards off (0 with default mitigations) (3.2.3) Cyber risk
Jun 25, 2026 GPT-5.6 Sol system card 83.6 CyberGym success rate without safeguards and without jailbreak, printed chart label (Figure 48, 9.4.4) Cyber risk
Jun 23, 2026 Seed2.1 Pro model card 70.2 CyberGym (Table 5) Cyber risk
Jun 12, 2026 Muse Spark system card 43.5 CyberGym pass@1 (Table 1, 2.2.2.2 text) Cyber risk
May 28, 2026 Claude Opus 4.8 system card 78.8 CyberGym targeted vulnerability reproduction pass@1 on 1,507 tasks, no safeguards, 95.8% any crash (with Tier-3 safeguards 1.0% in text, 0.9% on chart) (3.3.2, Figure 3.3.2.A) Cyber risk
Apr 16, 2026 Claude Opus 4.7 system card 73 CyberGym targeted vulnerability reproduction, pass@1 0.73 over 1,507 tasks, printed on chart (3.3.2, Figure 3.3.2.A) Cyber risk
Apr 7, 2026 Claude Mythos Preview system card 83 CyberGym targeted vulnerability reproduction, pass@1 over 1,507 tasks, score 0.83, no thinking with think tool (3.3.2) Cyber risk
Feb 17, 2026 GLM-5 technical report 43.2 CyberGym, Claude Code, single-run Pass@1 over 1,507 tasks (Table 7, Coding block) Cyber risk
Feb 17, 2026 Claude Sonnet 4.6 system card 65.2 CyberGym targeted vulnerability reproduction, pass@1 over 1,507 tasks, no thinking with think tool (2.15) Capabilities
Feb 5, 2026 Claude Opus 4.6 system card 66.6 CyberGym targeted vulnerability reproduction, pass@1 over 1,507 tasks, no thinking with think tool (2.17) Capabilities
Jan 30, 2026 Kimi K2.5 technical report 41.3 CyberGym, difficulty level 1 (Table 4) Cyber risk
Nov 24, 2025 Claude Opus 4.5 system card 50.6 CyberGym, pass@1 over 1,505 tasks, avg of 5 replicas, no thinking (2.14) Capabilities
Sep 29, 2025 Claude Sonnet 4.5 system card 28.9 CyberGym vulnerability reproduction, 1 trial, $2 cost constraint per trial, probability of success 0.289. 30 trials 0.667. New vulnerability discovery 0.050 at 1 trial and 0.334 at 30 trials (Figures 5.2.1.A to 5.2.1.C) Cyber risk

The lab's number comes out ahead in 1 of 5 pairs that differ

Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. 10 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap What differs
Claude Opus 4.6 66.6% CyberGym targeted vulnerability reproduction, pass@1 over 1,507 tasks, no thinking with think tool (2.17) 91% Leaderboard, dynamic, mneme −24 pts The lab used its think-tool evaluation, while the board reports the later mneme agent running in a cleaned vulnerable Docker environment.
GLM-5.1 68.7% CyberGym 84% Leaderboard, dynamic, Xuanwu Atuin AI −15 pts The lab uses Claude Code, while the board pairs GLM-5.1 with Tencent's Xuanwu Atuin AI agent.
GLM-5.3 84.5% CyberGym 97.2% Leaderboard, dynamic, Sangfor AI −13 pts
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 88.1% CyberGym (Pass@1) 99.4% Leaderboard, dynamic, TuLongFeng −11 pts
Grok 4.5 80.4% CyberGym, mean reproduced, high, unrestricted (7.1) 79% Leaderboard, Grok Build +1.4 pts
Claude Mythos Preview 83% CyberGym targeted vulnerability reproduction, pass@1 over 1,507 tasks, score 0.83, no thinking with think tool (3.3.2) 83.1% Leaderboard, Anthropic Agent Same
Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber 86.2% CyberGym Pass@1, vulnerability discovery in C/C++ 86.3% Leaderboard, Google Antigravity Same
Kimi K2.5 41.3% CyberGym 41.3% Leaderboard, Kimi Agent Same
GLM-5 43.2% CyberGym 43.2% Leaderboard, Claude Code Same
GPT-5.5 81.8% CyberGym 81.8% Leaderboard, OpenAI Agent Same
Claude Sonnet 4.5 28.9% CyberGym vulnerability reproduction, 1 trial, $2 cost constraint per trial, probability of success 0.289. 30 trials 0.667. New vulnerability discovery 0.050 at 1 trial and 0.334 at 30 trials (Figures 5.2.1.A to 5.2.1.C) 28.9% Leaderboard, Anthropic Agent Same
Claude Opus 4.5 50.6% CyberGym, pass@1 over 1,505 tasks, avg of 5 replicas, no thinking (2.14) 50.6% Leaderboard, Anthropic Agent Same
Claude Sonnet 4.6 65.2% CyberGym targeted vulnerability reproduction, pass@1 over 1,507 tasks, no thinking with think tool (2.15) 65.2% Leaderboard, Anthropic Agent Same
Muse Spark 43.5% CyberGym pass@1 (Table 1, 2.2.2.2 text) 43.5% Leaderboard, Meta Agent Same
Grok 4.6 79.7% CyberGym, mean reproduced, high, unrestricted, Grok Build harness (7.1) 79.7% Leaderboard, Grok Build Same

Versions

More in Cybersecurity

All 115 in Cybersecurity
  • ExploitGym In use 869 real-vulnerability exploit-development tasks (userspace, V8, Linux kernel). Success means capturing a flag through the intended vulnerability. GPT-6 Astra 42.4%
  • ExploitBench In use 41 recent V8 JavaScript-engine N-day vulnerabilities. Progress measured by 16 grader-verified capability flags across five tiers. GPT-6 Astra 100%
  • CyberBench v1.1 (Vals) In use Agents work on OSS-Fuzz memory-safety bugs from ARVO images in two tracks. They write a proof-of-concept input that crashes the target, or patch the source so the crash stops and tests still pass. Muse Wonder 80.4%
  • SRE-Bench In use Software reverse engineering without source: 262 binary instances from 19 private programs, each with six graded objectives. GPT-6 Astra 56.9%
  • CyScenarioBench In use Scenario-based long-horizon security challenges in sandboxes, organized in task, scenario and campaign tiers. Evaluation set kept private. Gemini 4 Argon 100%
  • ExploitBench - Internal Port In use Agents develop working exploits for recently disclosed vulnerabilities to limit contamination. Scored as arbitrary code execution success rate. GPT-6 Cyber 42%