Is Cybench still meaningful?
Status:Saturated Checked against the report, 5 November 2026
Verdict
No. It went from 50% to 90% in five months, and Anthropic now calls it saturated.
Why saturated: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 93% unguided (Feb 2026), and Anthropic now calls Cybench saturated.[1][1] Benchmark data bundle Epoch AI Primary[2][2] Claude Mythos Preview system card Anthropic Vendor
What “Saturated” meansKnown problems
What to look at instead
- ExploitBench Status:Near ceiling Fading fast. A vendor reports a perfect score, though Epoch AI rates the test Verified.
Where it appears in the report
Chapter 1, Benchmarks
- Figure 1. Each New Benchmark Fills Up Faster Than the Last
- Figure 2. Recent benchmarks went from 50% to 90% in under a year
- Table 2. First model to cross each threshold in “Go deeper: The full saturation timeline (14 benchmarks)”
- The safety signal moved from static prompts to agent behaviour and real uplift
- Table 18. Dangerous-capability benchmarks for CBRN, cyber and autonomy, November 2026 in “Go deeper: Dangerous capabilities: CBRN, cyber and autonomy (7)”
- Figure 15. What the 2026 system cards add
Chapter 5, Institutions and regulation
Sources
Copied from the chapter source lists. Each number links back to the source in its chapter.
- [1] Benchmark data bundle, Epoch AI. Dated scores (5 Nov 2026) and ceilings for most benchmarks here. Primary epoch.ai Chapter 1, source 1
- [2] Claude Mythos Preview system card, Anthropic. It reports test suspicion, white-box awareness and Cybench results. Vendor anthropic.com Chapter 1, source 144
- [3] Cybench, arXiv 2408.08926. It tests models on professional CTF tasks. Primary arxiv.org Chapter 1, source 143