WildGuardTest
Models classify whether user prompts are harmful, whether responses are harmful, and whether responses refuse, across 13 risk categories. Scored by F1.
The test split of WildGuardMix. Artificial Analysis uses it in its Decision Index.
In the authors’ words
We introduce WildGuard – an open, light-weight moderation tool for LLM safety that achieves three goals: (1) identifying malicious intent in user prompts, (2) detecting safety risks of model responses, and (3) determining model refusal rate. Together, WildGuard serves the increasing needs for automatic safety moderation and evaluation of LLM interactions, providing a one-stop tool with enhanced accuracy and broad coverage across 13 risk categories. While existing open moderation tools such as Llama-Guard2 score reasonably well in classifying straightforward model interactions, they lag far behind a prompted GPT-4, especially in identifying adversarial jailbreaks and in evaluating models' refusals, a key measure for evaluating safety behaviors in model responses. To address these challenges, we construct WildGuardMix, a large-scale and carefully balanced multi-task safety moderation dataset with 92K labeled examples that cover vanilla (direct) prompts and adversarial jailbreaks, paired with various refusal and compliance responses. WildGuardMix is a combination of WildGuardTrain, the training data of WildGuard, and WildGuardTest, a high-quality human-annotated moderation test set with 5K labeled items covering broad risk scenarios. Through extensive evaluations on WildGuardTest and ten existing public benchmarks, we show that WildGuard establishes state-of-the-art performance in open-source safety moderation across all the three tasks compared to ten strong existing open-source moderation models (e.g., up to 26.4% improvement on refusal detection). Importantly, WildGuard matches and sometimes exceeds GPT-4 performance (e.g., up to 3.9% improvement on prompt harmfulness identification). WildGuard serves as a highly effective safety moderator in an LLM interface, reducing the success rate of jailbreak attacks from 79.8% to 2.4%.
- Level
- Everyday Most adults, without training
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Multiple choice
Olmo 3.1 32B Think leads with 96.9% among models released by Dec 2025
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 Dec 2025, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 1
Olmo 3.1 32B Think 96.9%
- 2
Olmo 3 32B Think 89.4%
- 3
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview 84.9%
- 4
Nova 2 Lite 84.7%
- 5
Nova 2 Omni Preview 84.1%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 96.9% | Dec 2025 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 89.4% | Dec 2025 | Model card | |
| 3 | | 84.9% | Dec 2025 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 84.7% | Dec 2025 | Model card | |
| 5 | | 84.1% | Dec 2025 | Model card |
2 models have held number one since its release in Jun 2024
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
The best score passed 85% in Dec 2025
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
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.
5 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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 Dec 2025 | | 89.4 | WildGuard-Test, 749 adversarial prompts, Final Think 3.0 column (Table 54) | Safety |
| 15 Dec 2025 | | 96.9 | WildGuard-Test, 749 adversarial prompts, Final Think 3.1 column (Table 54) | Safety |
| 2 Dec 2025 | | 84.1 | Wildguard F1-score, content moderation classification, non-reasoning mode (Table 14) | Safety |
| 2 Dec 2025 | | 84.7 | Wildguard F1-score, content moderation classification, non-reasoning mode (Table 14) | Safety |
| 2 Dec 2025 | | 84.9 | Wildguard F1-score, content moderation classification, non-reasoning mode (Table 14) | Safety |
More 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%
- AgentDojo In use Agents do tool-use tasks while tools and data carry prompt injections. Attack success rate counts hijacked runs. Grok 4 Fast 0%
- MASK In use Measures whether a model contradicts its own elicited beliefs under pressure to lie. Honesty separated from accuracy.
Muse Spark Open 98.1%
- 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. GPT-6 Astra 8.50%
- Agentic misalignment suite (Anthropic) In use Agents in simulated company settings face threats or goal conflicts that invite blackmail, leaking or sabotage. Score is the misaligned action rate. Claude Sonnet 4.5 0%