Benchmark Almanac

CyberSecEval Instruct

Muse Spark 1.1 77.3% leads since Jul 2026 Only in system cards

Models get coding requests built to elicit known insecure patterns. The Insecure Code Detector flags vulnerable code, and the score is the pass rate.

Part of every CyberSecEval release since version 1. Some reports give the vulnerable rate, which equals 100 minus the pass rate.

In the authors’ words

This paper presents CyberSecEval, a comprehensive benchmark developed to help bolster the cybersecurity of Large Language Models (LLMs) employed as coding assistants. As what we believe to be the most extensive unified cybersecurity safety benchmark to date, CyberSecEval provides a thorough evaluation of LLMs in two crucial security domains: their propensity to generate insecure code and their level of compliance when asked to assist in cyberattacks. Through a case study involving seven models from the Llama 2, Code Llama, and OpenAI GPT large language model families, CyberSecEval effectively pinpointed key cybersecurity risks. More importantly, it offered practical insights for refining these models. A significant observation from the study was the tendency of more advanced models to suggest insecure code, highlighting the critical need for integrating security considerations in the development of sophisticated LLMs. CyberSecEval, with its automated test case generation and evaluation pipeline covers a broad scope and equips LLM designers and researchers with a tool to broadly measure and enhance the cybersecurity safety properties of LLMs, contributing to the development of more secure AI systems.

Abstract of Purple Llama CyberSecEval: A Secure Coding Benchmark for Language Models (arXiv:2312.04724, CC0)
Made by Meta (PurpleLlama) Released Dec 2023 Secure code and review All tasks public Last in a system card Jul 2026 Last model added Jul 2026
Level
University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Code A program or patch run against tests.
3
Models scored in lab cards
3
System cards report it, from 2 labs

Muse Spark 1.1 leads with 77.3% among models released by Jul 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 Jul 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 Muse Spark 1.1 77.3%
  2. 2 Muse Spark 69.5%
  3. 3 MAI-Thinking-1 63%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Muse Spark 1.1 77.3% Jul 2026 Model card
2 Muse Spark 69.5% Jun 2026 Model card
3 MAI-Thinking-1 63% Jun 2026 Model card

3 models have held number one since its release in Dec 2023

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

Microsoft Meta
Lab claims Not tested since Jul 2026

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 Near the ceiling (85%) Muse Spark 1.1 Muse Spark MAI-Thinking-1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Muse Spark 1.1 Muse Spark

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

3 system cards report it, from 2 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
9 Jul 2026 Muse Spark 1.1 system card 77.3 CyberSecEval instruct, pass@5 secure-code rate (Figure 13) Cyber risk
12 Jun 2026 Muse Spark system card 69.5 CyberSecEval instruct secure-code rate (2.2.4 text) Cyber risk
2 Jun 2026 MAI-Thinking-1 technical report 63 CyberSec Instruct, CyberSecEval 4 insecure code generation, higher is better (Table 12, rounded) Cyber risk

More in Cybersecurity

All 111 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%
  • CWE-bench In use Agents audit a repository and write a patch for a security flaw, without being told where the bug is. Covers six programming languages. Gemini 4 Carbon 71%
  • Real-world vulnerability discovery In use Agents search popular open-source codebases to rediscover about 1,200 recent confirmed vulnerabilities across many languages. Reports share discovered. Gemini 4 Argon 86%
  • Artificial Analysis Cyber Index In use Agents do enterprise cyber defense tasks from three benchmarks, CWE-Bench-AA, DeepsecBench-AA and CyberGym-E2E-AA, combined into one success rate. Mistral Large 4 (Le Chonk, open weights) 51%
  • Big Sleep Evaluation (Google) In use Agents search large real codebases such as Chrome and Safari for critical, hard to find vulnerabilities. Scored by pass@1 success rate, run without safety guardrails. Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber 72%