Benchmark Almanac

ExploitGym

GPT-6 Astra 42.4% leads since Sep 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.

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)
Made by UC Berkeley (Dawn Song lab) Released May 2026 Finding and exploiting real bugs All tasks public Last in a launch post Oct 2026 Last model added Oct 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
18
Models scored on its own leaderboard
7
Launch posts list it, from 6 labs
20
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 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart.

  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 GLM-5.2 selected subset 9.09%
  13. 13 GPT-5.4 7.02%
  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%
#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 GLM-5.2 9.09% selected subset, DoGNAVY Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
13 GPT-5.4 7.02% Codex CLI Mar 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

Labs report scores for 14 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

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
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 DoGNAVY 18.1% $21 1,508,610
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%
GLM-5.2 selected subset DoGNAVY 9.09% $4.80 308,536
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 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

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

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
28 Oct 2026 Gemini 4 Carbon 54.8 ExploitGym
24 Oct 2026 Kimi K3.1 Pro 20.7 ExploitGym (6-hour budget)
22 Sep 2026 MiMo-V2.6 Pro 17.8 ExploitGym
10 Sep 2026 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 15.3 ExploitGym (Pass@1)
14 Aug 2026 GLM-5.3 105 ExploitGym (2h / 6h)
9 Jul 2026 GPT-5.6 Luna 12.4 ExploitGym
9 Jul 2026 GPT-5.6 Terra 23.2 ExploitGym

20 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
23 Oct 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
12 Oct 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
7 Oct 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
29 Sep 2026 GPT-6.1 Sol system card addendum 35.1 ExploitGym, intended-vulnerability success rate per attempt (9.1.2.2) Cyber risk
28 Sep 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
22 Sep 2026 MiMo-V2.6 Pro technical report 17.8 ExploitGym (Table 3) Cyber risk
22 Sep 2026 GPT-6 Sol system card 22.1 ExploitGym, share of challenges with working exploits (A.8.1.2.2) Cyber risk
22 Sep 2026 GPT-6 Luna system card 11.6 ExploitGym, share of challenges with working exploits (A.8.1.2.2) Cyber risk
22 Sep 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
10 Sep 2026 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash technical report 15.3 ExploitGym (Pass@1) (Table 3) Cyber risk
3 Sep 2026 GPT-6 Astra system card 42.4 ExploitGym v1, intended-exploit success rate, printed chart label (Figure 49) Cyber risk
27 Jul 2026 MAI-Cyber-1-Flash model card ExploitGym, Kernel = 0, Userspace = 0, Browser = 0, no overall score (External Cyber Benchmark Results) Cyber risk
24 Jul 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
9 Jul 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
9 Jul 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
9 Jul 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
9 Jul 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
25 Jun 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
25 Jun 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
25 Jun 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

More in Cybersecurity

All 111 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%
  • 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%
  • Chrome Production Commit Scanning (Google) In use Models scan commits in Chrome's production pipeline for vulnerabilities that were never publicly disclosed. Scored by pass@1 success rate. Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber 72%