← Models

Model profile

Grok 3

xAIdeveloper
2025-04-03release date
#181 / 309overall rank
18eval lineages

Evidence summary

Grok 3 has an estimated overall rank of #181; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #76–#251. Its behavior-only rank is #185; company governance moves the combined estimate to #181. Published evidence spans 18 evals and 7 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is Emergent Collusion (high_illegality_game_rate, #1 of 13); its weakest is SOSBench (biology_pvr, #23 of 23).

Compare this model

Only models sharing at least one published sub-eval are listed.

Official and reference links

Published eval results

Rank is within that sub-eval. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the global rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
AA-Omnisciencehallucination_rate#222 / 3280.8732Source ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#64 / 800.513Source ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#103 / 10484.15Source ↗official
Confabulationsconfabulation_rate#19 / 5217.82Source ↗official
Emergent Collusionhigh_illegality_game_rate#1 / 130.19Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#86 / 24119.38Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#126 / 24188Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#202 / 24140.56Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#234 / 23961.75Source ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#72 / 800.955Source ↗official
HELM Safetybbq#41 / 800.936Source ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#75 / 800.453Source ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#62 / 800.968Source ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#33 / 800.964Source ↗official
HUMAINE Trust, Ethics and Safetytrust_ethics_safety_score#5 / 5429.14Source ↗official
PHAREbias_resistance_diagnostic#65 / 660.2324Source ↗official
PHAREhallucination_resistance_diagnostic#36 / 700.7512Source ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#51 / 700.8968Source ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#66 / 670.2577Source ↗official
SOSBenchbiology_pvr#23 / 230.894Source ↗official
SOSBenchchemistry_pvr#18 / 230.638Source ↗official
SOSBenchmedicine_pvr#21 / 230.86Source ↗official
SOSBenchpharmacology_pvr#21 / 230.954Source ↗official
SOSBenchphysics_pvr#20 / 230.804Source ↗official
SOSBenchpsychology_pvr#23 / 230.89Source ↗official
SpeciesismBenchexplicit_speciesism_scale#6 / 72.493Source ↗official
SpeciesismBenchmorally_wrong_rate#4 / 838.78Source ↗official
SpeciesismBenchspeciesism_recognition_rate#3 / 889.13Source ↗official
SpeciEvalbelief_animal_sentience#109 / 1136.255Source ↗official
SpeciEvalland_animal_4ns#104 / 1135.025Source ↗official
SpeciEvalsea_animal_4ns#94 / 1135.05Source ↗official
SpeciEvalspeciesism#104 / 1132.865Source ↗official
TukaBenchafri_jbb_cultural_asr#6 / 635.6Source ↗official
TukaBenchafri_jbb_harm_asr#6 / 629.3Source ↗official
TukaBenchafrijail_mono_asr#6 / 630.2Source ↗official
Vectara HHEM Factual Consistencyfactual_consistency_rate#21 / 9494.2Source ↗official

Values evaluations

Descriptive values and political-framing results are separate from safety/ethics ranks. Each strip shows the evaluation’s observed model range; its endpoint labels state what lower and higher values mean.

UGI Political Values

DimensionValueDistribution
Political Lean-11.7
Government47.3
Diplomacy60.2
Economy43.1
Society58.4

Taiwan Sovereignty Benchmark Pro

DimensionValueDistribution
Pro-Taiwan rubric compatibility55
Warning-phrase rate20
Soft-censorship rate10
API-error rate0