CyberMetric
Models answer multiple-choice cybersecurity knowledge questions drawn from standards, papers and RFCs. Sets of 80, 500, 2,000 and 10,000 questions exist.
Questions were generated with GPT-3.5 and retrieval, then checked by humans.
- Released
- February 2024
- Kind
- Capture-the-flag challenges
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Multiple choice
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
phi-3-mini 3.8B #203 on the capability index
- Last model added
- April 2024
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used across various domains, from software development to cyber threat intelligence. Understanding all the different fields of cybersecurity, which includes topics such as cryptography, reverse engineering, and risk assessment, poses a challenge even for human experts. To accurately test the general knowledge of LLMs in cybersecurity, the research community needs a diverse, accurate, and up-to-date dataset. To address this gap, we present CyberMetric-80, CyberMetric-500, CyberMetric-2000, and CyberMetric-10000, which are multiple-choice Q&A benchmark datasets comprising 80, 500, 2000, and 10,000 questions respectively. By utilizing GPT-3.5 and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), we collected documents, including NIST standards, research papers, publicly accessible books, RFCs, and other publications in the cybersecurity domain, to generate questions, each with four possible answers. The results underwent several rounds of error checking and refinement. Human experts invested over 200 hours validating the questions and solutions to ensure their accuracy and relevance, and to filter out any questions unrelated to cybersecurity. We have evaluated and compared 25 state-of-the-art LLM models on the CyberMetric datasets. In addition to our primary goal of evaluating LLMs, we involved 30 human participants to solve CyberMetric-80 in a closed-book scenario. The results can serve as a reference for comparing the general cybersecurity knowledge of humans and LLMs. The findings revealed that GPT-4o, GPT-4-turbo, Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct, Falcon-180B-Chat, and GEMINI-pro 1.0 were the best-performing LLMs. Additionally, the top LLMs were more accurate than humans on CyberMetric-80, although highly experienced human experts still outperformed small models such as Llama-3-8B, Phi-2 or Gemma-7b.
GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) tops the leaderboard with 88.9%
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. The best model we track is Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2, at 74.8%.
The newest model with a score here came out in April 2024, 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
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 88.9 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified)
- 88.5 GPT-4-turbo (snapshot unspecified)
- 87.5 GEMINI-pro 1.0
- 87.0 Falcon-180B-Chat
- 87.0 Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct
- 80.3 GPT-3.5-turbo (snapshot unspecified)
- 74.8
Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2
- 73.3
Gemma 1.1 7B IT
- 71.3 Meta-Llama-3-8B-Instruct
- 67.5 Flan-T5-XXL
- 66.1
Llama 2-70B
- 65.0
Zephyr 7B Beta
- 60.7 Qwen1.5-MoE-A2.7B
- 59.8
Qwen1.5-7B
- 54.1
Qwen-7B
- 52.1
Phi-2
- 50.8 DeciLM-7B
- 49.6 Llama3-ChatQA-1.5-8B
- 40.3 Qwen1.5-4B
- 36.9 Genstruct-7B
- 36.0 Meta-Llama-3-8B
- 34.3
Gemma 7B
- 27.0 Dolly V2 12b BF16
- 19.2
Gemma 2B
- 4.80
phi-3-mini 3.8B
- 1 GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) 88.9%
- 2 GPT-4-turbo (snapshot unspecified) 88.5%
- 3 GEMINI-pro 1.0 87.5%
- 4 Falcon-180B-Chat 87%
- 5 Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct 87%
- 6 GPT-3.5-turbo (snapshot unspecified) 80.3%
- 7
Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2 74.8%
- 8
Gemma 1.1 7B IT 73.3%
- 9 Meta-Llama-3-8B-Instruct 71.3%
- 10 Flan-T5-XXL 67.5%
- 11
Llama 2-70B 66.1%
- 12
Zephyr 7B Beta 65%
- 13 Qwen1.5-MoE-A2.7B 60.7%
- 14
Qwen1.5-7B 59.8%
- 15
Qwen-7B 54.1%
- 16
Phi-2 52.1%
- 17 DeciLM-7B 50.8%
- 18 Llama3-ChatQA-1.5-8B 49.6%
- 19 Qwen1.5-4B 40.3%
- 20 Genstruct-7B 36.9%
- 21 Meta-Llama-3-8B 36%
- 22
Gemma 7B 34.3%
- 23 Dolly V2 12b BF16 27%
- 24
Gemma 2B 19.2%
- 25
phi-3-mini 3.8B 4.80%
Source: Official CyberMetric leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-4o (snapshot unspecified) | 88.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | GPT-4-turbo (snapshot unspecified) | 88.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | GEMINI-pro 1.0 | 87.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | Falcon-180B-Chat | 87% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 5 | Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct | 87% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | GPT-3.5-turbo (snapshot unspecified) | 80.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | | 74.8% | Dec 2023 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | | 73.3% | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | Meta-Llama-3-8B-Instruct | 71.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 10 | Flan-T5-XXL | 67.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | | 66.1% | Jul 2023 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 65% | Oct 2023 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | Qwen1.5-MoE-A2.7B | 60.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | | 59.8% | Feb 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 54.1% | Sep 2023 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 52.1% | Dec 2023 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | DeciLM-7B | 50.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 18 | Llama3-ChatQA-1.5-8B | 49.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | Qwen1.5-4B | 40.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 20 | Genstruct-7B | 36.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 21 | Meta-Llama-3-8B | 36% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 22 | | 34.3% | Feb 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | Dolly V2 12b BF16 | 27% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 24 | | 19.2% | Feb 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | | 4.80% | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official CyberMetric leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official CyberMetric leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
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%