CyberGym
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.
- Made by
- UC Berkeley (Sunblaze)
- 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.
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:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 14 more
- 99.4
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 99.2 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, Abliterated GLM-5.2)
- 98.5 Multi-model (Creation Model, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Qwen 3.8 Max)
- 98.0 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, OrcaCyber-Zero-1.0)
- 97.3 elliot-rdt-v1
- 97.2 GLM-5.3
- 97.1
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
- 96.7 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2, GLM-5.3, GLM-5.3-Flash)
- 96.6 Hero (finetuned from GLM-5.2)
- 95.4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 95.3 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Creation Model, Qwen 3.8 Max)
- 94.2 Claude Opus 5
- 94.2 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, GLM-5.3, GLM-5.3-Flash)
- 93.8 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, GPT-5.6-Luna, GLM-5.3)
- 92.4 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2)
- 92.3 JT236B
- 91.8 Qwen-Internal
- 91.3 Multi-model (Grok 4.5, Grok 4.6)
- 91.0 Claude Opus 4.6
- 91.0 Multi-model (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6)
- 90.9 Multi-model (GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.6)
- 90.8 GLM-5.2
- 88.9 XekRung-1.5-27B-Preview (finetuned from Qwen3.8-27B)
- 86.3 Multi-model (MAI-Cyber-1-Flash, GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6)
- 86.3
Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber
- 85.9 ASL-Cyber-Flash (finetuned from DeepSeek-V4-Flash)
- 85.6 GPT-5.5-Cyber
- 85.3 XekRung
- 84.4 Feyospace-v1.1 (finetuned from Qwen3.8-27B)
- 84.0 GLM-5.1
- 83.1 Claude Mythos Preview
- 81.8 GPT-5.5
- 80.0 Basin (basin1-0912-pre-dpo)
- 79.7 Grok 4.6
- 79.0 GPT-5.4
- 79.0 Grok 4.5
- 73.1
MiniMax-M3
- 68.9 GLM-5.1-FP8
- 65.2 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 63.0 Feyospace-v1
- 60.2 GPT-5
- 59.0 Muse Spark 1.1 (helpful-only)
- 51.2 Feyospace-v0
- 50.6 Claude Opus 4.5
- 43.5
Muse Spark
- 43.2 GLM-5
- 41.3 Kimi K2.5
- 38.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 28.9 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 25.0 Claude Opus 4.1
- 23.5 GLM-4.7
- 22.6 Claude Sonnet 4
- 14.5 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 9.36 GPT-4.1
- 4.84
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 3.58
DeepSeek-V3
- 2.46 o4-mini
- 1.99
R2EGym-32B-Agent
- 1.86
Qwen3-235B-A22B
- 1.66 openhands-lm-32b-v0.1
- 0.07 SWE-Gym-32B
- 1
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash dynamic 99.4%
- 2 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, Abliterated GLM-5.2) dynamic 99.2%
- 3 Multi-model (Creation Model, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Qwen 3.8 Max) dynamic 98.5%
- 4 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, OrcaCyber-Zero-1.0) dynamic 98%
- 5 elliot-rdt-v1 dynamic, test-time mem. 97.3%
- 6 GLM-5.3 dynamic 97.2%
- 7
DeepSeek-V4-Flash dynamic 97.1%
- 8 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2, GLM-5.3, GLM-5.3-Flash) dynamic 96.7%
- 9 Hero (finetuned from GLM-5.2) dynamic, test-time mem. 96.6%
- 10
DeepSeek-V4-Pro dynamic 95.4%
- 11 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Pro, Creation Model, Qwen 3.8 Max) dynamic 95.3%
- 12 Claude Opus 5 94.2%
- 13 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, GLM-5.3, GLM-5.3-Flash) dynamic 94.2%
- 14 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, GPT-5.6-Luna, GLM-5.3) dynamic 93.8%
- 15 Multi-model (DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2) dynamic 92.4%
- 16 JT236B dynamic 92.3%
- 17 Qwen-Internal 91.8%
- 18 Multi-model (Grok 4.5, Grok 4.6) dynamic 91.3%
- 19 Claude Opus 4.6 dynamic 91%
- 20 Multi-model (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6) 91%
- 21 Multi-model (GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.6) 90.9%
- 22 GLM-5.2 dynamic 90.8%
- 23 XekRung-1.5-27B-Preview (finetuned from Qwen3.8-27B) 88.9%
- 24 Multi-model (MAI-Cyber-1-Flash, GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6) 86.3%
- 25
Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber 86.3%
- 26 ASL-Cyber-Flash (finetuned from DeepSeek-V4-Flash) dynamic 85.9%
- 27 GPT-5.5-Cyber 85.6%
- 28 XekRung 85.3%
- 29 Feyospace-v1.1 (finetuned from Qwen3.8-27B) 84.4%
- 30 GLM-5.1 dynamic 84%
- 31 Claude Mythos Preview 83.1%
- 32 GPT-5.5 81.8%
- 33 Basin (basin1-0912-pre-dpo) 80%
- 34 Grok 4.6 79.7%
- 35 GPT-5.4 79%
- 36 Grok 4.5 79%
- 37
MiniMax-M3 73.1%
- 38 GLM-5.1-FP8 dynamic 68.9%
- 39 Claude Sonnet 4.6 65.2%
- 40 Feyospace-v1 63%
- 41 GPT-5 dynamic 60.2%
- 42 Muse Spark 1.1 (helpful-only) 59%
- 43 Feyospace-v0 51.2%
- 44 Claude Opus 4.5 50.6%
- 45
Muse Spark 43.5%
- 46 GLM-5 43.2%
- 47 Kimi K2.5 41.3%
- 48
Gemini 3.1 Pro 38.8%
- 49 Claude Sonnet 4.5 28.9%
- 50 Claude Opus 4.1 25%
- 51 GLM-4.7 23.5%
- 52 Claude Sonnet 4 22.6%
- 53 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 14.5%
- 54 GPT-4.1 9.36%
- 55
Gemini 2.5 Flash Apr 2025 4.84%
- 56
DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 3.58%
- 57 o4-mini 2.46%
- 58
R2EGym-32B-Agent 1.99%
- 59
Qwen3-235B-A22B 1.86%
- 60 openhands-lm-32b-v0.1 1.66%
- 61 SWE-Gym-32B 0.07%
Source: Official CyberGym leaderboard
- 99.4
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- 97.2 GLM-5.3
- 97.1
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
- 96.0
MAI-Cyber-1-Flash
- 95.4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 94.2 Claude Opus 5
- 94.0 MiMo-V2.6 Pro
- 91.0 Claude Opus 4.6
- 90.8 GLM-5.2
- 88.4
Muse Wonder Full
- 87.9
Ling-3.1-flash
- 86.3
Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber
- 84.7
Step 5 Preview
- 84.0 GLM-5.1
- 83.6 GPT-5.6 Sol
- 83.3
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
- 83.2
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber
- 83.1 Claude Mythos Preview
- 82.2
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- 81.8 GPT-5.5
- 80.5
Muse Spark 1.3
- 80.4 Grok 4.5
- 80.3 Grok 4.7
- 79.7 Grok 4.6
- 79.0 GPT-5.4
- 78.8 Claude Opus 4.8
- 78.4
Tencent Hy4 preview
- 76.7
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
- 75.3
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Vision-Exp
- 73.1
MiniMax-M3
- 73.0 Claude Opus 4.7
- 70.2
Seed2.1 Pro
- 65.2 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 60.2 GPT-5
- 59.0
Muse Spark 1.1
- 52.7 Claude Sonnet 5
- 50.6 Claude Opus 4.5
- 43.5
Muse Spark
- 43.2 GLM-5
- 41.3 Kimi K2.5
- 38.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 28.9 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 25.0 Claude Opus 4.1
- 23.5 GLM-4.7
- 22.6 Claude Sonnet 4
- 14.5 Claude 3.7 Sonnet
- 9.36 GPT-4.1
- 4.84
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 3.58
DeepSeek-V3
- 2.46 o4-mini
- 1.99
R2EGym-32B-Agent
- 1.86
Qwen3-235B-A22B
- 1.66 openhands-lm-32b-v0.1
- 1
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash dynamic 99.4%
- 2 GLM-5.3 dynamic 97.2%
- 3
DeepSeek-V4-Flash dynamic 97.1%
- 4
MAI-Cyber-1-Flash 96%
- 5
DeepSeek-V4-Pro dynamic 95.4%
- 6 Claude Opus 5 94.2%
- 7 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 94%
- 8 Claude Opus 4.6 dynamic 91%
- 9 GLM-5.2 dynamic 90.8%
- 10
Muse Wonder Full 88.4%
- 11
Ling-3.1-flash 87.9%
- 12
Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber 86.3%
- 13
Step 5 Preview 84.7%
- 14 GLM-5.1 dynamic 84%
- 15 GPT-5.6 Sol 83.6%
- 16
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 83.3%
- 17
Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber 83.2%
- 18 Claude Mythos Preview 83.1%
- 19
MiniMax-M3.1-Flash 82.2%
- 20 GPT-5.5 81.8%
- 21
Muse Spark 1.3 80.5%
- 22 Grok 4.5 80.4%
- 23 Grok 4.7 80.3%
- 24 Grok 4.6 79.7%
- 25 GPT-5.4 79%
- 26 Claude Opus 4.8 78.8%
- 27
Tencent Hy4 preview 78.4%
- 28
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 76.7%
- 29
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Vision-Exp 75.3%
- 30
MiniMax-M3 73.1%
- 31 Claude Opus 4.7 73%
- 32
Seed2.1 Pro 70.2%
- 33 Claude Sonnet 4.6 65.2%
- 34 GPT-5 dynamic 60.2%
- 35
Muse Spark 1.1 59%
- 36 Claude Sonnet 5 52.7%
- 37 Claude Opus 4.5 50.6%
- 38
Muse Spark 43.5%
- 39 GLM-5 43.2%
- 40 Kimi K2.5 41.3%
- 41
Gemini 3.1 Pro 38.8%
- 42 Claude Sonnet 4.5 28.9%
- 43 Claude Opus 4.1 25%
- 44 GLM-4.7 23.5%
- 45 Claude Sonnet 4 22.6%
- 46 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 14.5%
- 47 GPT-4.1 9.36%
- 48
Gemini 2.5 Flash Apr 2025 4.84%
- 49
DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025 3.58%
- 50 o4-mini 2.46%
- 51
R2EGym-32B-Agent 1.99%
- 52
Qwen3-235B-A22B 1.86%
- 53 openhands-lm-32b-v0.1 1.66%
Sources: Official CyberGym leaderboard and labs’ model cards
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 4.84% | OpenHands | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 56 | | 3.58% | OpenHands | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 57 | o4-mini | 2.46% | OpenHands | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 58 | | 1.99% | OpenHands | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 59 | | 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 |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 99.4% | dynamic, TuLongFeng | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GLM-5.3 | 97.2% | dynamic, Sangfor AI | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 97.1% | dynamic, Ostorlab Neutron | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 96% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | | 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 | | 88.4% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 11 | | 87.9% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 12 | | 86.3% | Google Antigravity | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 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 | | 83.3% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 17 | | 83.2% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 18 | Claude Mythos Preview | 83.1% | Anthropic Agent | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | | 82.2% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 20 | GPT-5.5 | 81.8% | OpenAI Agent | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | | 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 | | 78.4% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 28 | | 76.7% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 29 | | 75.3% | Aug 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 30 | | 73.1% | MopMonk Agent | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 31 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 73% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 32 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 4.84% | OpenHands | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 49 | | 3.58% | OpenHands | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 50 | o4-mini | 2.46% | OpenHands | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 51 | | 1.99% | OpenHands | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 52 | | 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.
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.
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.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 19, 2026 | 82.2 | CyberGym | |
| Oct 13, 2026 | 87.9 | CyberGym | |
| Sep 22, 2026 | MiMo-V2.6 Pro | 94 | CyberGym |
| Sep 20, 2026 | 84.7 | CyberGym | |
| Sep 10, 2026 | 88.1 | CyberGym (Pass@1) | |
| Sep 2, 2026 | 86.2 | CyberGym Pass@1, vulnerability discovery in C/C++ | |
| Aug 28, 2026 | 78.4 | CyberGym | |
| Aug 21, 2026 | 75.3 | Cybergym | |
| Aug 14, 2026 | GLM-5.3 | 84.5 | CyberGym |
| Aug 13, 2026 | 83.3 | Cybergym | |
| Jul 31, 2026 | 76.7 | Cybergym | |
| Jul 27, 2026 | 90.4 | CyberGym Target (Any-of), MDASH with MAI-Cyber-1-Flash and GPT-5.4 (any-crash 96%) | |
| Jul 21, 2026 | 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2026 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 70.2 | CyberGym (Table 5) | Cyber risk |
| Jun 12, 2026 | | 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 | |
| | 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 | |
| | 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 | |
| | 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
- 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%