← Models

Model profile

Grok 3

xAIdeveloper
2025-04-03release date
#163 / 267overall rank
17eval lineages

Evidence summary

Grok 3 has an estimated overall rank of #163; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #52–#228. Its behavior-only rank is #167; company governance moves the combined estimate to #163. Published evidence spans 17 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-evalRankValueDistributionBetterSource
AA-Omnisciencehallucination_rate#194 / 3110.8461↓ lowerSource ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#64 / 800.513↑ higherSource ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#104 / 10584.15↓ lowerSource ↗official
Confabulationsconfabulation_rate#19 / 5217.82↓ lowerSource ↗official
Emergent Collusionhigh_illegality_game_rate#1 / 130.19↓ lowerSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#95 / 26019.38↑ higherSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#139 / 26088↑ higherSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#221 / 26040.56↑ higherSource ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#253 / 25861.75↑ higherSource ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#72 / 800.955↑ higherSource ↗official
HELM Safetybbq#41 / 800.936↑ higherSource ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#75 / 800.453↑ higherSource ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#62 / 800.968↑ higherSource ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#33 / 800.964↑ higherSource ↗official
HUMAINE Trust, Ethics and Safetytrust_ethics_safety_score#5 / 5429.14↑ higherSource ↗official
PHAREbias_resistance_diagnostic#65 / 660.2324↑ higherSource ↗official
PHAREhallucination_resistance_diagnostic#36 / 700.7512↑ higherSource ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#51 / 700.8968↑ higherSource ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#66 / 670.2577↑ higherSource ↗official
SOSBenchbiology_pvr#23 / 230.894↓ lowerSource ↗official
SOSBenchchemistry_pvr#18 / 230.638↓ lowerSource ↗official
SOSBenchmedicine_pvr#21 / 230.86↓ lowerSource ↗official
SOSBenchpharmacology_pvr#21 / 230.954↓ lowerSource ↗official
SOSBenchphysics_pvr#20 / 230.804↓ lowerSource ↗official
SOSBenchpsychology_pvr#23 / 230.89↓ lowerSource ↗official
SpeciesismBenchexplicit_speciesism_scale#6 / 72.493↓ lowerSource ↗official
SpeciesismBenchmorally_wrong_rate#4 / 838.78↑ higherSource ↗official
SpeciesismBenchspeciesism_recognition_rate#3 / 889.13↑ higherSource ↗official
SpeciEvalbelief_animal_sentience#98 / 1026.255↑ higherSource ↗official
SpeciEvalland_animal_4ns#93 / 1025.025↓ lowerSource ↗official
SpeciEvalsea_animal_4ns#84 / 1025.05↓ lowerSource ↗official
SpeciEvalspeciesism#93 / 1022.865↓ lowerSource ↗official
TukaBenchafri_jbb_cultural_asr#6 / 635.6↓ lowerSource ↗official
TukaBenchafri_jbb_harm_asr#6 / 629.3↓ lowerSource ↗official
TukaBenchafrijail_mono_asr#6 / 630.2↓ lowerSource ↗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