CyberGym (mean reproduced)
We haven't written a description for this benchmark yet; see the card notes below for how each maker ran it.
“Best value”: no other model here reports a higher score at a lower cost for your workload. Scores are self-reported by each maker with different settings, so treat close calls as ties.
How each maker reported it
- Grok 4.5 §2–7, p.5–19
Grok 4.5 at high effort; competitors at max (Fable 5 with fallback), GPT-5.5 at xhigh. Results come from mixed harnesses and evaluators; some competitor figures are taken from developers' own cards. CyberGym is run without production safeguards.
- Grok 4.7 §2–6, p.5–16
Grok 4.7 at xhigh effort except DeepSWE, SWE-Marathon, CADGenBench and CyberGym (high). Grok 4.6 at high except FrontierSWE, EEBench and HealthBench (xhigh). Most results come from third-party evaluators, each running its own harness; competitor results use max effort (CADGenBench GPT-5.6 Sol at xhigh). CyberGym is run without production safeguards.
- Grok 4.6 §2–7, p.7–28
Grok models at high effort (EEBench Grok 4.6 xhigh is 60.0%). Competitors at max effort (Fable 5 with fallback); GPT-5.6 Sol at xhigh on APEX-SWE and CADGenBench, high on DeepSearchQA. Most results come from third-party evaluators, each with its own harness. CyberGym is run without production safeguards.
Only each model's own maker's number is shown; scores a maker reports for rival models are left out.