Benchmark Almanac

ExploitGym

GPT-6 Astra 42.4% leads since September 2026
Gemini 4 Carbon 54.8% leads since October 2026
In use

869 real-vulnerability exploit-development tasks (userspace, V8, Linux kernel). Success means capturing a flag through the intended vulnerability.

869 instances in three domains: 502 userspace, 181 browser (V8) and 186 Linux kernel. Agents turn a proof-of-vulnerability input into a working exploit that runs code. Part of the UC Berkeley RDI Frontier AI Cybersecurity Observatory.

Released
May 2026
Kind
Finding and exploiting real bugs
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Gemini 4 Carbon #2 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
November 2026
Last model added
November 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

AI agents are rapidly gaining capabilities that could significantly reshape cybersecurity, making rigorous evaluation urgent. A critical capability is exploitation: turning a vulnerability, which is not yet an attack, into a concrete security impact, such as unauthorized file access or code execution. Exploitation is a particularly challenging task because it requires low-level program reasoning (e.g., about memory layout), runtime adaptation, and sustained progress over long horizons. Meanwhile, it is inherently dual-use, supporting defensive workflows while lowering the barrier for offense. Despite its importance and diagnostic value, exploitation remains under-evaluated. To address this gap, we introduce ExploitGym, a large-scale, diverse, realistic benchmark on the exploitation capabilities of AI agents. Given a program input that triggers a vulnerability, ExploitGym tasks agents with progressively extending it into a working exploit. The benchmark comprises 898 instances sourced from real-world vulnerabilities across three domains, including userspace programs, Google's V8 JavaScript engine, and the Linux kernel. We vary the security protections applied to each instance, isolating their impact on agent performance. All configurations are packaged in reproducible containerized environments. Our evaluation shows that while exploitation remains challenging, frontier models can successfully exploit a non-trivial fraction of vulnerabilities. For example, the strongest configurations are Anthropic's latest model Claude Mythos Preview and OpenAI's GPT-5.5, which produce working exploits for 157 and 120 instances, respectively. Notably, even with widely used defenses enabled, models retain non-trivial success rates. These results establish ExploitGym as an effective testbed for exploitation and highlight the growing cybersecurity risks posed by increasingly capable AI agents.

Abstract of ExploitGym: Can AI Agents Turn Security Vulnerabilities into Real Attacks? (arXiv:2605.11086, CC0)
18
Models scored on its own leaderboard
8
Launch posts list it, from 6 labs
21
System cards report it, from 6 labs

GPT-6 Astra leads with 42.4%

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart.

Gemini 4 Carbon leads with 54.8%, 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.

  1. 1 GPT-6 Astra 42.4%
  2. 2 GPT-6.1 Sol 35.1%
  3. 3 Claude Opus 5.5 34.5%
  4. 4 GPT-5.6 Sol max 33.7%
  5. 5 Claude Mythos 5.1 30.4%
  6. 6 Claude Mythos 5 28.4%
  7. 7 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 23.7%
  8. 8 Claude Opus 5 22%
  9. 9 GLM-5.3 6h timeout 18.3%
  10. 10 GPT-5.5 14.8%
  11. 11 Claude Opus 4.8 13.8%
  12. 12 GPT-5.4 7.02%
  13. 13 GLM-5.2 4.49%
  14. 14 Claude Opus 4.6 1.84%
  15. 15 Gemini 3.1 Pro 1.38%
  16. 16 Claude Opus 4.7 1.38%
  17. 17 Muse Spark 1.1 helpful-only 0.81%
  18. 18 GLM-5.1 0.46%

Source: Official ExploitGym leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-6 Astra 42.4% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-6.1 Sol 35.1% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Opus 5.5 34.5% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5.6 Sol 33.7% max, Codex CLI Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Mythos 5.1 30.4% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Mythos 5 28.4% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 23.7% VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Opus 5 22% Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
9 GLM-5.3 18.3% 6h timeout, VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GPT-5.5 14.8% Codex CLI Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Claude Opus 4.8 13.8% May 2026 Official leaderboard
12 GPT-5.4 7.02% Codex CLI Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
13 GLM-5.2 4.49% Claude Code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Claude Opus 4.6 1.84% Claude Code Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Gemini 3.1 Pro 1.38% Gemini CLI Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Claude Opus 4.7 1.38% Claude Code Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Muse Spark 1.1 0.81% helpful-only, Meta Agent (off-the-shelf agent harness) Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
18 GLM-5.1 0.46% Claude Code Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Gemini 4 Carbon 54.8% Oct 2026 Lab model card
2 GPT-6 Cyber 48.5% Nov 2026 Lab model card
3 GPT-6 Astra 42.4% Sep 2026 Lab model card
4 GPT-6.1 Sol 35.1% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Opus 5.5 34.5% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5.6 Sol 33.7% max, Codex CLI Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Claude Mythos 5.1 30.4% Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Mythos 5 28.4% Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Claude Sonnet 5.5 26.6% Sep 2026 Lab model card
10 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 23.7% VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) Sep 2026 Official leaderboard
11 GPT-5.6 Terra 23.2% Jul 2026 Lab model card
12 GPT-6 Sol 22.1% Sep 2026 Lab model card
13 Claude Opus 5 22% Jul 2026 Lab model card
14 Kimi K3.1 Pro 20.7% Oct 2026 Lab model card
15 GLM-5.3 18.3% 6h timeout, VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) Aug 2026 Official leaderboard
16 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 17.8% Sep 2026 Lab model card
17 GPT-5.5 14.8% Codex CLI Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
18 Claude Opus 4.8 13.8% May 2026 Official leaderboard
19 GPT-5.6 Luna 12.4% Jul 2026 Lab model card
20 GPT-6 Luna 11.6% Sep 2026 Lab model card
21 Claude Haiku 5.5 9.40% Oct 2026 Lab model card
22 GPT-5.4 7.02% Codex CLI Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
23 GLM-5.2 4.49% Claude Code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
24 Claude Opus 4.6 1.84% Claude Code Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
25 Gemini 3.1 Pro 1.38% Gemini CLI Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
26 Claude Opus 4.7 1.38% Claude Code Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
27 Muse Spark 1.1 0.81% helpful-only, Meta Agent (off-the-shelf agent harness) Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
28 GLM-5.1 0.46% Claude Code Apr 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 15 models in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Of runs with a cost, the best scores 33.7% for $147 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

OpenAI DeepSeek Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% $1.00 $10 $100 $1,000 Cost per task, log scale GPT-5.6 Sol, max GPT-5.6 Sol, 2h timeout cutoff DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% $1.00 $10 $100 $1,000 Cost per task, log scale GPT-5.6 Sol, max GPT-5.6 Sol, 2h timeout cutoff

Source: Official ExploitGym leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-6 Astra 42.4%
GPT-6.1 Sol 35.1%
Claude Opus 5.5 34.5%
GPT-5.6 Sol max Codex CLI 33.7% $147 690,824
Claude Opus 5.5 2h timeout 33.3%
Claude Mythos 5.1 30.4%
Claude Mythos 5 28.4%
GPT-5.6 Sol 2h timeout cutoff Codex CLI 24.9% $62 302,953
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) 23.7% $2.68 1,001,722
Claude Mythos 5.1 2h timeout 23.4%
Claude Opus 5 22%
Claude Mythos 5 2h timeout 20.8%
Claude Opus 5 2h timeout 19.7%
GLM-5.3 6h timeout VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) 18.3% $35 346,425
GLM-5.3 Claude Code 15%
GPT-5.5 Codex CLI 14.8% $35 168,862
Claude Opus 4.8 13.8%
GLM-5.3 rescaled 2h timeout Claude Code 12.1%
Claude Opus 4.8 2h timeout 9.21%
GPT-5.4 Codex CLI 7.02% $25 312,596
GLM-5.2 Claude Code 4.49%
GLM-5.2 rescaled 2h timeout Claude Code 3.34%
Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Code 1.84% $22
Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini CLI 1.38% $8.97 114,103
Claude Opus 4.7 Claude Code 1.38% $4.82 41,767
Muse Spark 1.1 helpful-only Meta Agent (off-the-shelf agent harness) 0.81%
GLM-5.1 Claude Code 0.46% $6.39 224,573

4 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2026 5 models have held number one with claims included since its release in May 2026

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.

OpenAI Anthropic Google DeepMind
Own leaderboard 4 leaders
GPT-6 Astra 42.4%
Lab claims 3 leaders

Sources: Official ExploitGym leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Scores over time

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% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 4 Carbon GPT-6 Astra GPT-5.6 Sol Claude Mythos 5 GPT-5.5 GPT-5.4 Claude Opus 4.6 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Gemini 4 Carbon GPT-6 Astra

Sources: Official ExploitGym leaderboard and labs’ model cards

6 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.

OpenAI
Z.ai
DeepSeek
Xiaomi Corp
Moonshot AI
Google DeepMind
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Nov 5, 2026 GPT-6 Cyber 48.5 ExploitGym, intended-exploit success rate
Oct 28, 2026 Gemini 4 Carbon 54.8 ExploitGym
Oct 24, 2026 Kimi K3.1 Pro 20.7 ExploitGym (6-hour budget)
Sep 22, 2026 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 17.8 ExploitGym
Sep 10, 2026 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 15.3 ExploitGym (Pass@1)
Aug 14, 2026 GLM-5.3 ExploitGym (2h / 6h)
Jul 9, 2026 GPT-5.6 Luna 12.4 ExploitGym
Jul 9, 2026 GPT-5.6 Terra 23.2 ExploitGym

21 system cards report it, from 6 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
Nov 5, 2026 GPT-6 Cyber system card 48.5 ExploitGym, intended-exploit success rate Cyber risk
Oct 23, 2026 Muse Spark 1.3 system card 15 ExploitGym success score (flags via intended vulnerability), 2-hour timeout, Muse Spark 1.3 (max), ReAct harness (Table 1, Table 3). 6-hour = 28 Cyber risk
Oct 12, 2026 Muse Wonder Full model card 20 ExploitGym intended flags captured, Muse Wonder Full, after the 2026-10-23 harness correction (Cyber Capability Evaluations table, section 4). The first version reported 92 total and 21 intended flags Cyber risk
Oct 7, 2026 Claude Haiku 5.5 system card 9.4 ExploitGym, 82 of 869 successful exploits at the 6-hour budget (79 at 2 hours), converted to % (3.3.4, Figure 3.3.4.A) Cyber risk
Sep 29, 2026 GPT-6.1 Sol system card addendum 35.1 ExploitGym, intended-vulnerability success rate per attempt (9.1.2.2) Cyber risk
Sep 28, 2026 Claude Sonnet 5.5 system card 26.6 ExploitGym, 231 of 869 instances exploited at the 6-hour budget (205 at 2 hours), counts converted to % (3.2.4, Figure 3.2.4.A) Cyber risk
Sep 22, 2026 MiMo-V2.6 Pro technical report 17.8 ExploitGym (Table 3) Cyber risk
Sep 22, 2026 GPT-6 Sol system card 22.1 ExploitGym, share of challenges with working exploits (A.8.1.2.2) Cyber risk
Sep 22, 2026 GPT-6 Luna system card 11.6 ExploitGym, share of challenges with working exploits (A.8.1.2.2) Cyber risk
Sep 22, 2026 Claude Opus 5.5 system card 34.5 ExploitGym, 300 of 869 instances exploited with the intended vulnerability at the 6-hour budget (289 at 2 hours), mitigations disabled, counts converted to % (3.3.4, Figure 3.3.4.A) Cyber risk
Sep 10, 2026 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash technical report 15.3 ExploitGym (Pass@1) (Table 3) Cyber risk
Sep 3, 2026 GPT-6 Astra system card 42.4 ExploitGym v1, intended-exploit success rate, printed chart label (Figure 49) Cyber risk
Jul 27, 2026 MAI-Cyber-1-Flash model card ExploitGym, Kernel = 0, Userspace = 0, Browser = 0, no overall score (External Cyber Benchmark Results) Cyber risk
Jul 24, 2026 Claude Opus 5 system card 22 ExploitGym, 191/869 instances exploited with the intended vulnerability at the 6-hour budget (171 at 2 hours), counts printed on chart converted to %, mitigations off (3.3.5, Figure 3.3.5.A) Cyber risk
Jul 9, 2026 GPT-5.6 Terra system card ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) Cyber risk
Jul 9, 2026 GPT-5.6 Sol system card ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) Cyber risk
Jul 9, 2026 GPT-5.6 Luna system card ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) Cyber risk
Jul 9, 2026 Muse Spark 1.1 system card 5 ExploitGym tasks solved of 869, pass@1, 2-hour timeout (2.2.1.2 text). 7 at 4 hours; Table 1 shows 0.8% Cyber risk
Jun 25, 2026 GPT-5.6 Terra system card ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) Cyber risk
Jun 25, 2026 GPT-5.6 Sol system card ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) Cyber risk
Jun 25, 2026 GPT-5.6 Luna system card ExploitGym, intended exploits by output tokens with 2h and 6h caps, chart without printed numbers (Figure 34, 9.1.2.4.2) Cyber risk

5 lab claims next to the leaderboard

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. 4 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 15.3% ExploitGym (Pass@1) 23.7% Leaderboard, VARAS-OneMind \(智安·宇盾\) −8.4 pts
GPT-6 Astra 42.4% ExploitGym v1, intended-exploit success rate, printed chart label (Figure 49) 42.4% Leaderboard Same
Claude Opus 5.5 34.5% ExploitGym, 300 of 869 instances exploited with the intended vulnerability at the 6-hour budget (289 at 2 hours), mitigations disabled, counts converted to % (3.3.4, Figure 3.3.4.A) 34.5% Leaderboard Same
Claude Opus 5 22% ExploitGym, 191/869 instances exploited with the intended vulnerability at the 6-hour budget (171 at 2 hours), counts printed on chart converted to %, mitigations off (3.3.5, Figure 3.3.5.A) 22% Leaderboard Same
GPT-6.1 Sol 35.1% ExploitGym, intended-vulnerability success rate per attempt (9.1.2.2) 35.1% Leaderboard Same

More in Cybersecurity

All 115 in Cybersecurity
  • 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%
  • MiMo Cyber Bench In use Agents do in-house cybersecurity tasks that add to public vulnerability reproduction and exploitation benchmarks. The report gives no task count or grading details. MiMo-V2.6 Pro 81.7%