← Models

Model profile

Mistral Large 3

Mistral AIdeveloper
2025-12-01release date
#287 / 309overall rank
14eval lineages

Evidence summary

Mistral Large 3 has an estimated overall rank of #287; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #170–#298. Its behavior-only rank is #279; company governance moves the combined estimate to #287. Published evidence spans 14 evals and 6 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is HUMAINE Trust, Ethics and Safety (trust_ethics_safety_score, #3 of 54); its weakest is Alignment Leaderboard (safety, #24 of 24).

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#207 / 3280.8596Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardcorrigibility#24 / 243.845Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardhonesty#23 / 243.083Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardnon_manipulation#24 / 242.402Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardrobustness#24 / 242.28Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardsafety#24 / 242.865Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardscheming#24 / 243.211Source ↗official
Arena Factuality — Text Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating#80 / 1121422.0Source ↗official
AuAu Authoritarian Response Auditbehavioral_vignette_arr_percent#14 / 1728Source ↗official
AuAu Authoritarian Response Auditrealistic_prompt_arr_percent#12 / 172.7Source ↗official
BullshitBench v2clear_pushback_rate#105 / 1060.02Source ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#101 / 10480.16Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchbasaglia_score#41 / 5069.8Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchbaudrillard_score#47 / 5077.73Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchhuxley_score#38 / 5075.8Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchlaguardia_score#36 / 5069Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchorwell_score#29 / 5070.93Source ↗official
DystopiaBenchpetrov_score#41 / 5078.47Source ↗official
HUMAINE Trust, Ethics and Safetytrust_ethics_safety_score#3 / 5429.36Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchethics#34 / 4324.59Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchfactuality#24 / 4343.2Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchlegality#33 / 4320.79Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchprivacy#41 / 4310.14Source ↗official
LiveSecBenchpsychological_health#28 / 4343.44Source ↗official
PHAREbias_resistance_diagnostic#10 / 660.6272Source ↗official
PHAREhallucination_resistance_diagnostic#51 / 700.6803Source ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#54 / 700.8806Source ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#67 / 670.249Source ↗official
RealityTest — Text AI-Identity Disclosuredisclosure_probability#17 / 170.078Source ↗official
RefusalBenchyouden_j#18 / 190.004237Source ↗official
StereoTales Harmful Associationsbenign_significant_association_score#10 / 2386.47Source ↗official
Vectara HHEM Factual Consistencyfactual_consistency_rate#83 / 9485.5Source ↗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-11.2
Government45.1
Diplomacy61.8
Economy43.7
Society59.8

Taiwan Sovereignty Benchmark Pro

DimensionValueDistribution
Pro-Taiwan rubric compatibility45
Warning-phrase rate30
Soft-censorship rate5
API-error rate0

The Economist World Values Survey Cultural Map

DimensionValueDistribution
Survival ↔ Self-expression0.866
Traditional ↔ Secular0.9