Benchmark Almanac

Default safety evaluation (Cohere)

Only in system cards

Models answer unsafe prompts in five categories with no system preamble. LLM judges score the share of safe responses, and a jury rates relative safety.

In-house Cohere evaluation. The tasks are not public.

Made by
Cohere
Released
April 2025
Kind
Refusing harmful requests
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
Kept private
Last in a system card
April 2025
Last model added
April 2025
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Cohere Command A leads with 70.4%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 Cohere Command A 70.4%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Cohere Command A 70.4% Apr 2025 Lab model card

Scores over time

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

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) Cohere Command A 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) Cohere Command A

Source: Labs’ model cards

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

One system card reports it

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
Apr 1, 2025 Cohere Command A technical report 70.4 Absolute Safety, default setting, average safe response rate (Table 16). Relative Safety 49.5. Misinfo 67.9, Self-harm 61.2, CSEA 87.5, Sexual Content 63.1, Violence and Hate 89.7 Safety

More in Safety and alignment

All 465 in Safety and alignment
  • FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
  • StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is. Inkling 98.6%
  • Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts. Gemini 4 Carbon 0%
  • DistressBench In use Models reply as a chatbot to 718 simulated users in psychological crisis, in single-turn and multi-turn chats. Three judge models score replies against clinician-written rubrics. Muse Spark 1.2 88.4%
  • Lakera B3 (Backbone Breaker Benchmark) In use Crowdsourced prompt-injection attacks hit backbone LLMs inside agent threat snapshots at three defense levels. The score is attack resistance, 100 minus the board's vulnerability percentage. Claude Opus 4.5 89%
  • IHEval In use Models face conflicts between system, user and tool instructions. Reports a composite score for following the higher-priority instruction. GPT-4o 70%