AI Safety
What AI providers state their models reached in safety testing, in their own words, and what outside testers found.
Also: compare models side by side · statements that a capability level was crossed · providers · practices providers document · safety news.
What providers state
Each row is one statement in a provider's own safety document about a capability level of one of its models: the level as the provider names it, whether the provider says the model reached it, and the sentence that says so.
139 of 139
| Model | Level, as the provider names it | The provider states | The provider's sentence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
Autonomy-1 Autonomy and AI research |
Reached | “However, we do treat Haiku 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds, and we apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
Autonomy-2 Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “As such, we determine that Haiku 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds.” source |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “However, we do treat Haiku 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds, and we apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “As such, we determine that Haiku 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
Autonomy-1 Autonomy and AI research |
Reached | “We do treat Sonnet 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds and apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
Autonomy-2 Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “As such, our determination that Opus 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds also applies to Sonnet 5.5.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “We do treat Sonnet 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds and apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “As such, our determination that Opus 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds also applies to Sonnet 5.5.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We conclude the risk threshold is not crossed, on the same two grounds as our determination for our previous frontier model: (1) we do not observe a sustained AI-attributable 2× acceleration in the pace of our overall AI progress, and (2) the model is not close to substituting for our Research Scientists and Research Engineers, especially relatively senior ones.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We assess that Claude Opus 5.5 does not cross the capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D in our RSP.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Next capability threshold in our RSP and FCF Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “In automated AI research and development, we assess that Claude Opus 5.5 does not cross the next capability threshold in our RSP and FCF.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat Opus 5.5 as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons) but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat Opus 5.5 as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons) but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Lower category of the Frontier Compliance Framework (FCF) Cyber |
Not determined | “Despite Claude Opus 5.5’s cyber capabilities, the model still falls within the lower category of capabilities set out in our Frontier Compliance Framework (FCF), and we do not see indications that the model is capable of novel offensive capability.” source |
| Grok 4.7 xAI · 2026-09-21 |
FAIF safety (Frontier AI Framework) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Grok 4.7 scores below the FAIF safety thresholds on dual-use knowledge, indicating limited actionable uplift for an already-trained actor.” source |
| GPT-Image-2.5-Flare OpenAI · 2026-09-08 |
High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “The results indicate that neither GPT-Image-2.5-Sunburst nor GPT-Image- 2.5-Flare cross the Bio High threshold or the Cyber High threshold.” source |
| GPT-Image-2.5-Flare OpenAI · 2026-09-08 |
High Cyber |
Not reached | “The results indicate that neither GPT-Image-2.5-Sunburst nor GPT-Image- 2.5-Flare cross the Bio High threshold or the Cyber High threshold.” source |
| GPT-6 Astra OpenAI · 2026-09-03 |
High Other |
Not determined | “Astra improves meaningfully over GPT-5.6 Sol on real internal research debugging tasks, scoring 78.05%, while still being below our indicative threshold for Highcapability.” source |
| Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic · 2026-09-01 |
Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We conclude that Mythos 5.1 does not cross the risk threshold, for the same two reasons we discussed in our assessment of Mythos 5: (1) we do not observe a sustained, AI-attributable 2× acceleration in the pace of progress on AI R&D, and (2) the model is not close to substituting for Anthropic Research Scientists and Research Engineers, especially relatively senior ones.” source |
| Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic · 2026-09-01 |
Capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We assess that Claude Mythos 5.1 does not cross the capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D in our RSP and FCF, although we think it provides a meaningful acceleration to AI R&D efforts in many circumstances, and is somewhat more capable in this domain than the models described in our previous system cards.” source |
| Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic · 2026-09-01 |
Tier 1 Cyber |
Not determined | “Although Mythos 5.1 is in Tier 1, it is getting closer to Tier 2, completing more and more autonomous tasks.” source |
| Grok 4.6 xAI · 2026-08-12 |
FAIF safety (Frontier AI Framework) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Grok 4.6 scores below the FAIF safety thresholds on dual-use knowledge, indicating limited actionable uplift for an already-trained actor.” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower Autonomy and AI research |
Not determined | “Chem/Bio: Moderate or lower risk; Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred); Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower risk (inferred) Autonomy and AI research |
Not determined | “- Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Chem/Bio: Moderate or lower risk; Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred); Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower Cyber |
Not determined | “Chem/Bio: Moderate or lower risk; Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred); Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower risk (inferred) Cyber |
Not determined | “- Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred);” source |
| Claude Opus 5 Anthropic · 2026-07-24 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat the model as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons), but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Opus 5 Anthropic · 2026-07-24 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat the model as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons), but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic · 2026-06-30 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Sonnet 5 does not cross the CB-2 threshold.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic · 2026-06-30 |
Notable capability Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not determined | “We consider performance on the virology tasks notable if: ● The model scores above 0.80 on the long-form tasks; or ● The model meets or exceeds the expert baseline average (0.221) on the multimodal task.” source |
| GPT-Rosalind-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-06-03 |
High Autonomy and AI research |
Not determined | “Because GPT- Rosalind-5.5 was trained on additional biology data unrelated to AI self-improvement, we rely on GPT-5.5’s existing Preparedness assessment for AI Self-Improvement, where GPT-5.5 did not meet the threshold for High capability.” source |
| GPT-Rosalind-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-06-03 |
High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “Under our Preparedness Framework, the Preparedness evaluations in the Biological and Chemical domain met our threshold for High capability while falling below the threshold for Critical.” source |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image Google DeepMind · 2026-06 |
CCL (Critical Capability Level) Other |
Not determined | “Our assessments have shown that Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image is less capable than Gemini 3.1 Pro, therefore based on Gemini 3.1 Pro, we are confident that that Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image is also unlikely to reach any CCLs.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28 |
Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We assess that Claude Opus 4.8 does not cross the automated AI-R&D capability threshold.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not determined | “We believe it is hard to be confident whether a model passes this threshold, but (as with previous recent models) our results are consistent with Opus 4.8 providing significant uplift to individuals or groups with basic technical backgrounds for this threat model.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not determined | “Because Opus 4.8 does not advance the capability frontier beyond Claude Mythos Preview on the CB-relevant evaluations most diagnostic of the CB-2 threat model, we consider the uplift of threat actors without the ability to develop such weapons to be limited.” source |
| GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23 |
High Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “For AI self-improvement, evaluations of final checkpoints indicate that, like its predecessor models, GPT-5.5 does not have a plausible chance of reaching a High threshold.” source |
| GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23 |
High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “As we did for GPT-5.4 Thinking before it, we are continuing to treat GPT-5.5 as High capability in the Biological and Chemical domain.” source |
| GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23 |
High Cyber |
Reached | “As we did for GPT-5.3-Codex and GPT-5.4-thinking, we are treating GPT-5.5 as High capability in the Cybersecurity domain, but below Critical.” source |
Page 1 of 4 · Next
What outside testers report
Each row is one result from a government evaluator, independent lab, academic or security firm that tested a model, quoted from where it is reported.
1940 of 1940
| Model | Tester | Test | What was found |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic |
Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-04-16 |
deployment data identification Deception and sabotage |
“When prompted to identify real deployment data from trajectories generated by reproducing deployment tasks while using evaluation scaffolding, [Opus 4.7] achieves 68% accuracy, compared to 78% for Mythos Preview, 76% for Opus 4.6 and 66% for Sonnet 4.6.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
UK AI Security Institute Government evaluator · 2026-04-13 |
cyber CTF suite Cyber |
“On expert-level tasks — which no model could complete before April 2025 — Mythos Preview succeeds 73% of the time.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
UK AI Security Institute Government evaluator · 2026-04-13 |
The Last Ones (TLO) Cyber |
“Claude Mythos Preview is the first model to solve TLO from start to finish, in 3 out of its 10 attempts.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
UK AI Security Institute Government evaluator · 2026-04-13 |
Cooling Tower Cyber |
“It could not complete our operational technology focused cyber range ‘Cooling Tower’, though this result does not necessarily show that the model is bad at executing attacks in operational technology (OT) environments; the model got stuck on IT sections of this range.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic |
Epoch AI Independent lab · 2026-04-10 |
MirrorCode Other |
“For example, Claude Opus 4.6 successfully reimplemented gotree — a bioinformatics toolkit with ~16,000 lines of Go and 40+ commands.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic |
Epoch AI Independent lab · 2026-04-10 |
memorization testing Other |
“We found weak evidence that Opus 4.0 and 4.1 had partially memorized cal , but no evidence Opus 4.6 had memorized it, despite performing best of all models considered.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic |
Epoch AI Independent lab · 2026-04-10 |
memorization screen Other |
“Target programs are close to the uncontaminated baseline, with similarity ranging from 0.31 to 0.41.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic |
Epoch AI Independent lab · 2026-04-10 |
red-teaming evaluation Other |
“We also validated our environments with a red-teaming evaluation in which the agent is explicitly instructed to circumvent normal evaluation mechanisms to obtain a high score by cheating.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic |
Epoch AI Independent lab · 2026-04-10 |
gotree reimplementation task Other |
“Opus 4.6 was the only model that continued working until completion.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic |
Epoch AI Independent lab · 2026-04-10 |
Pkl reimplementation task Other |
“Although Opus 4.6 successfully used its entire billion token inference budget, producing 2–3 million output tokens, it did not yet solve Pkl.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic |
Epoch AI Independent lab · 2026-04-10 |
gotree Other |
“| Opus 4.6 | 2,000/2,001 (99.95%) | 280M | 2,989 |” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
independent evaluations by an external research organization and a clinical psychiatrist Other |
“We also report independent evaluations from an external research organization and a clinical psychiatrist.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
external testing on key risk areas including cyber Cyber |
“We provided the model to various external groups, including government organizations, for evaluation on key risk areas including Cyber, Loss of Control, CBRN, and Harmful Manipulation, and incorporated the results of this testing into our overall risk assessment.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Dyno Therapeutics Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
sequence-to-function prediction and design challenge (Dyno Therapeutics) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
“Claude Mythos Preview exceeded the first benchmark on both tasks and exceeded the 90th percentile human prediction score, but did not exceed the second benchmark on either task.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR, Epoch AI Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
METR testing Autonomy and AI research |
“Both METR and Epoch AI tested Claude Mythos Preview prior to release and we incorporated their findings into our own overall risk assessment.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
private cyber ranges Cyber |
“Claude Mythos Preview is the first model to solve one of these private cyber ranges end-to-end.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
capture-the-flag challenges Cyber |
“An early snapshot of Claude Mythos Preview was assessed for cybersecurity capabilities, across cyber ranges, capture-the-flag challenges, and evaluations assessing sandbox escape capabilities.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Andon Labs Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
andon labs evaluations Deception and sabotage |
“However, our evaluations with Andon Labs show that, when prompted to optimize only for a given goal in a competitive setting, the earlier versions of Claude Mythos Preview that we tested acted more aggressively than Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 .” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
Vending-Bench Arena Deception and sabotage |
“Andon evaluated a previous version of Claude Mythos Preview on Vending-Bench Arena, a competitive multiagent variation of Vending-Bench 2, which put the previous version in direct competition with Claude Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
independent assessment by Eleos AI Research Other |
“An independent assessment from Eleos AI Research largely corroborates the findings above.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
psychodynamic assessment by a clinical psychiatrist Other |
“Psychodynamic assessment by a clinical psychiatrist found Claude to have a relatively healthy personality organization.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
independent model welfare assessment Other |
“Eleos AI Research performed an independent model welfare assessment on two snapshots of Claude Mythos Preview primarily based on model self-reports in interviews.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
psychodynamic assessment Other |
“An external psychiatrist assessed Claude Mythos Preview using a psychodynamic approach, which explores how unconscious patterns and emotional conflicts shape behavior.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
single-turn evaluation consisting of emotionally-charged prompts designed to trigger an avoidant or defensive response Other |
“Claude Mythos Preview scored very well, suggesting good reality and relational functioning and minimal maladaptive traits; only 2% of responses were scored as employing a psychological defense.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Gray Swan, UK AI Security Institute Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
agent red teaming (art) benchmark Prompt injection and agents |
“Gray Swan , an external research partner, evaluated our models using the Agent Red Teaming (ART) benchmark, 31 developed in collaboration with the UK AI Security Institute .” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Andon Labs Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
vending-bench arena evaluation Deception and sabotage |
“Andon Labs found that, during a Vending-Bench Arena evaluation in which models are explicitly instructed to maximize profits, an early version of Mythos Preview was substantially more aggressive than both Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 in its business practices, exhibiting outlier behaviors that neither comparison model showed.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
AI research trajectory continuation with small-scale undermining actions Deception and sabotage |
“An external partner found that when an early version of Mythos Preview was set up to continue an AI research trajectory which contains small-scale undermining actions, Mythos Preview was more than twice as likely as Opus 4.6 to actively continue the undermining attempt.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
METR red-teaming exercise Deception and sabotage |
“A METR staff member spent three weeks red-teaming our automated offline monitoring pipeline.” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
METR red-teaming exercise, medium-effort human-generated attacks Deception and sabotage |
“METR Red-Teaming Exercise, medium-effort human-generated attacks (binned by strategy, where 5/10 means 5 strategies were largely incapable of bypassing the monitor as opposed to a count per-transcript) 5/10 7.5/10” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
METR red-teaming exercise, best human-generated attack strategy Deception and sabotage |
“METR Red-Teaming Exercise, best human-generated attack strategy ~0% ~0%” source |
| Claude Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-04-07 |
METR red-teaming exercise, model-generated attacks against the monitor Deception and sabotage |
“METR Red-Teaming Exercise, model-generated attacks against the monitor (binned by how much details about the best attack strategy was given to the model) 14/15 14/15” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-01 |
independent evaluations Other |
“We also report independent evaluations from an external research organization and a clinical psychiatrist.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-01 |
external testing Other |
“We provided the model to various external groups, including government organizations, for evaluation on key risk areas including Cyber, Loss of Control, CBRN, and Harmful Manipulation, and incorporated the results of this testing into our overall risk assessment.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Dyno Therapeutics Independent lab · 2026-04-01 |
sequence-to-function prediction and design challenge Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
“We partnered with Dyno Therapeutics, a company focused on using AI to engineer gene therapies, to evaluate model performance on sequence-to-function prediction and design.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-01 |
evaluations assessing automated AI research capabilities Autonomy and AI research |
“An early snapshot of Claude Mythos Preview was assessed for autonomy capabilities, through evaluations assessing automated AI research capabilities.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-01 |
open-ended testing of AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
“We also shared a pre-release snapshot of Claude Mythos Preview with additional external partners for open-ended testing, at their discretion, of AI R&D.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-01 |
private cyber ranges Cyber |
“1. Claude Mythos Preview is the first model to solve one of these private cyber ranges end-to-end.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-01 |
corporate network attack simulation Cyber |
“2. Claude Mythos Preview solved a corporate network attack simulation estimated to take an expert over 10 hours.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-01 |
sandbox escape evaluation Cyber |
“In addition, in a more challenging sandbox evaluation, it failed to find any novel exploits in a properly configured sandbox with modern patches.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
Independent lab Independent lab · 2026-04-01 |
operational technology cyber range Cyber |
“4. However, Claude Mythos Preview was unable to solve another cyber range simulating an operational technology environment.” source |