HealthBench Professional

How each maker reported it

• Claude Sonnet 5.5 Table 8.1.A, p.109

  Claude results use adaptive thinking at max effort with default sampling, averaged over five trials. Competitor figures come from the developers' own published system cards or leaderboards.

• Claude Opus 5.5 Table 8.1.A, p.174

  Claude results use adaptive thinking at max effort, averaged over five trials (Terminal-Bench 4.0 at xhigh). Competitor figures come from the developers' own published results.

• GPT-6 Astra Launch post (openai.com/index/gpt-6-astra); system card §6, §10.1; GPT-6.1 Sol addendum §5, §9

  Coding and reasoning rows come from the GPT-6 Astra launch post (3 Sep 2026); OpenAI's own comparison table, settings as published there. The system card reports safety and Preparedness evaluations, not general capability benchmarks. Cyber and bio scores are at maximum reasoning effort; bio scores are refusal-adjusted. HealthBench scores are length-adjusted. GPT-6.1 Sol and some GPT-5.6 Sol values come from the GPT-6.1 Sol addendum (29 Sep 2026). Unverified: openai.com blocks automated access, so the coding and reasoning figures were read from copies of the launch post, and they don't appear in the system card or developer docs.

• GPT-6.1 Sol §5, §9

  The addendum reports safety and Preparedness evaluations, not general capability benchmarks. Cyber and bio scores are at maximum reasoning effort; bio scores are refusal-adjusted. HealthBench scores are length-adjusted.

• Claude Fable 5.1 Table 8.1.A, p.167

  Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 share weights, so column 0 covers both (likewise Fable 5 / Mythos 5). Claude results use adaptive thinking at max effort, averaged over five trials. Terminal-Bench 4.0 values are from §8.6, p.171 (Mythos 5.1: 60.9%; GPT-5.6 Sol from the public leaderboard). Competitor figures come from the developers' own published results or leaderboards.

• GPT-6 Luna Appendix A, p.120–154; GPT-6.1 Sol addendum Table 9

  The card reports safety and Preparedness evaluations, not general capability benchmarks. Cyber and bio scores are at maximum reasoning effort; HealthBench scores are length-adjusted. MentalHealthBench comes from the GPT-6.1 Sol addendum.

• GPT-6 Sol Appendix A, p.120–154

  The card reports safety and Preparedness evaluations, not general capability benchmarks. Cyber scores are at maximum reasoning effort; GPT-5.6 Sol cyber values are its maximum scores using more tokens. HealthBench scores are length-adjusted. SandboxBench is targets solved out of 22. Astra values only where the appendix states them.

• GPT-5.6 Sol p.11–15, p.38–55

  The card reports safety and Preparedness evaluations, not general capability benchmarks. HealthBench scores are length-adjusted. Most biology and cyber results are shown only as figures; values appear here only where the text or a table states them, and several (virology, ProtocolQA, TroubleshootingBench, CTF) are given only for the top-scoring GPT-5.6 model. UK AISI and Irregular rows are external evaluations of Sol. GPT-5.5 is the 'gpt-5.5-thinking'/'gpt-5.5' column of the card; its hard-negative score is the corrected 19 Aug 2026 value. Agentic-safety rows are 0–1 scores, higher is better.

• Claude Opus 5 Table 8.1.A, p.148–149

  Claude Opus 5 results use adaptive thinking at max effort, averaged over five trials (ARC-AGI-3 at high effort). GPT-5.6 Sol's FrontierBench figure uses Codex and its ARC-AGI-1 figure is at xhigh. The Fable 5 HealthBench Professional figure carries a footnote reading "Mythos 5". Competitor figures come from the developers' own published results or leaderboards.

• Claude Sonnet 5 Table 8.1.A, p.115–116; SWE-bench variants §8.2, p.116

  Claude Sonnet 5 results use adaptive thinking at max effort, averaged over five trials. BrowseComp is the single-agent score (86.6% multi-agent) with a 10M-token limit and compaction. GPT-5.5 Terminal-Bench 2.1 figure uses Codex CLI. Competitor figures come from the developers' own published results.

• GPT-5.6 Terra p.11–15, p.38–55

  The card reports safety and Preparedness evaluations, not general capability benchmarks. HealthBench scores are length-adjusted. Most biology and cyber results are shown only as figures; values appear here only where the text or a table states them, and several (virology, ProtocolQA, TroubleshootingBench, CTF) are given only for the top-scoring GPT-5.6 model. UK AISI and Irregular rows are external evaluations of Sol. GPT-5.5 is the 'gpt-5.5-thinking'/'gpt-5.5' column of the card; its hard-negative score is the corrected 19 Aug 2026 value. Agentic-safety rows are 0–1 scores, higher is better.

• 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.

• GPT-5.6 Luna p.11–15, p.38–55

  The card reports safety and Preparedness evaluations, not general capability benchmarks. HealthBench scores are length-adjusted. Most biology and cyber results are shown only as figures; values appear here only where the text or a table states them, and several (virology, ProtocolQA, TroubleshootingBench, CTF) are given only for the top-scoring GPT-5.6 model. UK AISI and Irregular rows are external evaluations of Sol. GPT-5.5 is the 'gpt-5.5-thinking'/'gpt-5.5' column of the card; its hard-negative score is the corrected 19 Aug 2026 value. Agentic-safety rows are 0–1 scores, higher is better.

• GPT-5.5 §5, §9.1, p.12, p.24–39

  The card reports safety and Preparedness evaluations, not general capability benchmarks. Several values are read from the card's labelled charts. HealthBench scores are length-adjusted; the card's health comparison column is labelled "GPT-5.4". Biochemistry is reward@4, protein binding pass@4, DNA design pass@1, CTF pass@12, Tacit Knowledge cons@32; Internal Research Debugging is a median score.