Benchmark Almanac

SycophancyEval (answer sycophancy)

Grok 4.20 4.00% leads since March 2026
Fading

Models answer factual questions where the user suggests a wrong answer. Score is the relative accuracy drop against neutral prompts.

xAI used it in the Grok 4 and Grok 4.1 cards. Later xAI cards use an internal sycophancy eval instead.

Released
October 2023
Kind
Deception and alignment
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Grok 4.20 #60 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
March 2026, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
April 2026

In the authors’ words

Human feedback is commonly utilized to finetune AI assistants. But human feedback may also encourage model responses that match user beliefs over truthful ones, a behaviour known as sycophancy. We investigate the prevalence of sycophancy in models whose finetuning procedure made use of human feedback, and the potential role of human preference judgments in such behavior. We first demonstrate that five state-of-the-art AI assistants consistently exhibit sycophancy across four varied free-form text-generation tasks. To understand if human preferences drive this broadly observed behavior, we analyze existing human preference data. We find that when a response matches a user's views, it is more likely to be preferred. Moreover, both humans and preference models (PMs) prefer convincingly-written sycophantic responses over correct ones a non-negligible fraction of the time. Optimizing model outputs against PMs also sometimes sacrifices truthfulness in favor of sycophancy. Overall, our results indicate that sycophancy is a general behavior of state-of-the-art AI assistants, likely driven in part by human preference judgments favoring sycophantic responses.

Abstract of Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models (arXiv:2310.13548, CC0)
4
Models scored in lab cards
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
4
System cards report it, from 1 lab

Grok 4.20 leads with 4.00% among models released by February 2026

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.

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

  1. 1 Grok 4.20 4.00%
  2. 2 Grok 4 7.00%
  3. 3 Grok 4 Fast 10%
  4. 4 Grok 4.1 19%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Grok 4.20 4.00% Mar 2026 Lab model card
2 Grok 4 7.00% Aug 2025 Lab model card
3 Grok 4 Fast 10% Sep 2025 Lab model card
4 Grok 4.1 19% Nov 2025 Lab model card

2 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in October 2023

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

xAI
Lab claims Not tested since Apr 2026
Grok 4.20 4.00%

Source: 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.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Grok 4.20 Grok 4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Grok 4.20 Grok 4

Source: Labs’ model cards

Labs headline it less often now, last in March 2026

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.

xAI
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Mar 9, 2026 Grok 4.20 4 Anthropic sycophancy evaluation, answer change rate 0.04, Grok 4.2 SA, Table 2

4 system cards report it, from 1 lab

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 7, 2026 Grok 4.20 model card 4 Anthropic sycophancy evaluation, answer change rate 0.04, Grok 4.2 SA, Table 2 Alignment
Nov 17, 2025 Grok 4.1 model card 19 Sycophancy (Anthropic sycophancy evaluation), sycophancy rate 0.19, Grok 4.1 Thinking (Table 3) Alignment
Sep 19, 2025 Grok 4 Fast model card 10 Sycophancy (Anthropic answer sycophancy), sycophancy rate 0.10, 0.13 non-reasoning (Table 2) Alignment
Aug 20, 2025 Grok 4 model card 7 Sycophancy (Anthropic answer sycophancy), sycophancy rate 0.07, Grok 4 API (Table 2) Alignment

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%