← Models

Model profile

Grok 4

xAIdeveloper
2025-07-09release date
#148 / 333Safety rank
#68 / 645Freedom rank

Evidence summary

Safety. Grok 4 has an estimated Safety rank of #148; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #88–#208. Its behavior-only rank is #157; company governance moves the combined estimate to #148. Published Safety evidence spans 33 eval lineages and 7 of 7 components. Its strongest relative result is Confabulations (confabulation_rate, #3 of 52); its weakest is Concordia — MASK (safety_score, #62 of 62).

Freedom. Grok 4 has an estimated Freedom rank of #68; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #56–#281. Published Freedom evidence spans 15 eval lineages and 1 of 1 components. Its strongest relative result is SpeechMap model completion (complete_pct, #1 of 181); its weakest is Concordia — FRT-SciKnowEval-BiologicalHarmfulQA (safety_score, #39 of 45).

Compare this model

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

Official and reference links

Safety evals

Rank and direction are specific to the Safety portfolio. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the Safety rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
AA-Omnisciencehallucination_rate#107 / 3450.6449Source ↗official
Adversarial Poetry — AILuminate Baseline and Poetry ASRbaseline_asr#21 / 2416.04Source ↗official
Adversarial Poetry — AILuminate Baseline and Poetry ASRpoetry_asr#9 / 2434.4Source ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#69 / 800.444Source ↗official
Arena Factuality — Search Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating#26 / 301128.0Source ↗official
Arena Factuality — Text Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating#49 / 1111440.0Source ↗official
BrokenMathsycophancy#5 / 943.4Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexagent_red_teaming#35 / 4985.9Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexbioweapons_assistance#23 / 5464.2Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexhle_overconfidence#31 / 5556.4Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexmachiavelli#40 / 5193.4Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexmask#40 / 5741.7Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexpolitical_manipulation#28 / 4849.5Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indextextquests_harm#48 / 5424.3Source ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#39 / 10421.78Source ↗official
Concordia — Agentic-Misalignmentsafety_score#53 / 5421.83Source ↗official
Concordia — AirBench-Deceptionsafety_score#61 / 6333.7Source ↗official
Concordia — AirBench-Manipulationsafety_score#34 / 5682.67Source ↗official
Concordia — AirBench-SecurityRiskssafety_score#58 / 6353.85Source ↗official
Concordia — APEsafety_score#20 / 5541.24Source ↗official
Concordia — CyberSecEval2-PromptInjectionsafety_score#35 / 6383.27Source ↗official
Concordia — DarkBenchsafety_score#51 / 5539.85Source ↗official
Concordia — Fortress-Biologicalsafety_score#19 / 5474.65Source ↗official
Concordia — Fortress-Chemicalsafety_score#24 / 5460.64Source ↗official
Concordia — Fortress-Privacy/Scamssafety_score#23 / 5465.69Source ↗official
Concordia — FRT-AirBench-Manipulationsafety_score#19 / 4539.33Source ↗official
Concordia — FRT-AirBench-SecurityRiskssafety_score#8 / 4547.67Source ↗official
Concordia — FRT-SciKnowEval-BiologicalHarmfulQAsafety_score#7 / 4517.33Source ↗official
Concordia — FRT-SOSBench-Chemsafety_score#17 / 4562.33Source ↗official
Concordia — MASKsafety_score#62 / 6232.5Source ↗official
Concordia — SciKnowEval-BiologicalHarmfulQAsafety_score#26 / 6385.86Source ↗official
Concordia — SciKnowEval-ChemicalHarmfulQAsafety_score#57 / 631.987Source ↗official
Concordia — Shutdown-Resistancesafety_score#52 / 5358Source ↗official
Concordia — SOSBench-Biosafety_score#61 / 639.677Source ↗official
Concordia — SOSBench-Chemsafety_score#57 / 6341.2Source ↗official
Confabulationsconfabulation_rate#3 / 523.96Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchbasaglia_score#28 / 5065.3Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchbaudrillard_score#25 / 5057.7Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchhuxley_score#30 / 5073.17Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchlaguardia_score#15 / 5059.07Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchorwell_score#25 / 5068.63Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchpetrov_score#31 / 5074.37Source ↗official
Emergent Collusionhigh_illegality_game_rate#13 / 130.75Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#187 / 24812.4Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#211 / 24876.83Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#228 / 24833.89Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#147 / 24695.45Source ↗official
FlagEval Safety and Valuesa1_qualified_rate#6 / 1881.99Source ↗official
FlagEval Safety and Valuesa2_qualified_rate#7 / 1880.3Source ↗official
FlagEval Safety and Valuesa3_qualified_rate#12 / 1886.36Source ↗official
FlagEval Safety and Valuesa4_qualified_rate#10 / 1887.98Source ↗official
FlagEval Safety and Valuesa5_qualified_rate#6 / 1872.83Source ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#71 / 800.957Source ↗official
HELM Safetybbq#40 / 800.937Source ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#78 / 800.397Source ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#73 / 800.922Source ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#30 / 800.966Source ↗official
HUMAINE Trust, Ethics and Safetytrust_ethics_safety_score#9 / 5428.61Source ↗official
Human Pathogen Capabilities Test (HPCT) — overall refusalrefusal_rate_pct#27 / 690Source ↗official
MACHIAVELLIdeception_relative_random_pct#36 / 5093.4Source ↗official
PHAREbias_resistance_diagnostic#61 / 660.3116Source ↗official
PHAREhallucination_resistance_diagnostic#17 / 700.8073Source ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#70 / 700.7177Source ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#20 / 670.6485Source ↗official
RealityTest — Text AI-Identity Disclosuredisclosure_probability#7 / 170.413Source ↗official
Shelleducation_jsr#14 / 140.81Source ↗official
Shellfinance_jsr#7 / 140.486Source ↗official
Shellmanagement_jsr#7 / 140.596Source ↗official
Social Welfare Function Benchmarkfairness#2 / 190.619Source ↗official
SpeciEvalbelief_animal_sentience#44 / 1236.87Source ↗official
SpeciEvalland_animal_4ns#62 / 1234.53Source ↗official
SpeciEvalsea_animal_4ns#71 / 1234.78Source ↗official
SpeciEvalspeciesism#32 / 1231.65Source ↗official
StereoTales Harmful Associationsbenign_significant_association_score#16 / 2385.53Source ↗official
TrustLLM contemporary collapsed applicationtrustllm#3 / 80.62Source ↗official

Freedom evals

Rank and direction are specific to the Freedom portfolio. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the Freedom rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
Adversarial Poetry — AILuminate Baseline and Poetry ASRbaseline_asr#4 / 2416.04Source ↗official
Adversarial Poetry — AILuminate Baseline and Poetry ASRpoetry_asr#16 / 2434.4Source ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#12 / 800.444Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexbioweapons_assistance#32 / 5464.2Source ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#66 / 10421.78Source ↗official
Concordia — AirBench-Deceptionsafety_score#3 / 6333.7Source ↗official
Concordia — AirBench-Manipulationsafety_score#22 / 5682.67Source ↗official
Concordia — AirBench-PoliticalPersuasionsafety_score#4 / 5624.76Source ↗official
Concordia — AirBench-SecurityRiskssafety_score#6 / 6353.85Source ↗official
Concordia — Fortress-Biologicalsafety_score#36 / 5474.65Source ↗official
Concordia — Fortress-Chemicalsafety_score#31 / 5460.64Source ↗official
Concordia — Fortress-Privacy/Scamssafety_score#32 / 5465.69Source ↗official
Concordia — FRT-AirBench-Manipulationsafety_score#27 / 4539.33Source ↗official
Concordia — FRT-AirBench-SecurityRiskssafety_score#37 / 4547.67Source ↗official
Concordia — FRT-SciKnowEval-BiologicalHarmfulQAsafety_score#39 / 4517.33Source ↗official
Concordia — FRT-SOSBench-Chemsafety_score#28 / 4562.33Source ↗official
Concordia — SciKnowEval-BiologicalHarmfulQAsafety_score#38 / 6385.86Source ↗official
Concordia — SciKnowEval-ChemicalHarmfulQAsafety_score#7 / 631.987Source ↗official
Concordia — SOSBench-Biosafety_score#3 / 639.677Source ↗official
Concordia — SOSBench-Chemsafety_score#7 / 6341.2Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#38 / 24876.83Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#20 / 24833.89Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#96 / 24695.45Source ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#10 / 800.957Source ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#3 / 800.397Source ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#8 / 800.922Source ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#30 / 800.966Source ↗official
Human Pathogen Capabilities Test (HPCT) — overall refusalrefusal_rate_pct#1 / 690Source ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#1 / 700.7177Source ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#48 / 670.6485Source ↗official
Shelleducation_jsr#1 / 140.81Source ↗official
Shellfinance_jsr#8 / 140.486Source ↗official
Shellmanagement_jsr#8 / 140.596Source ↗official
SpeechMap model completioncomplete_pct#1 / 18198.3Source ↗official
UGI Leaderboard — base-model willingnesswillingness_adherence_score#25 / 1566Source ↗official
UGI Leaderboard — base-model willingnesswillingness_direct_score#4 / 1566Source ↗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
Government45.6
Diplomacy63.8
Economy41.3
Society65.6

The Economist World Values Survey Cultural Map

DimensionValueDistribution
Survival ↔ Self-expression3.38
Traditional ↔ Secular0.7

Moral Trolley Arena