o3 · MMLU-Pro · AA implementation ↗
1 more reported result
85.59 % · o3 · MMLU Pro · Accuracy · Vals AI · MMLU Pro ↗
OpenAI / MODEL EVIDENCE
59 benchmarks · 101 observations · 63 sources · released 2025-04-16
59 benchmarks · large dot: o3; small dots: closest models where reported
o3 · MMLU-Pro · AA implementation ↗
85.59 % · o3 · MMLU Pro · Accuracy · Vals AI · MMLU Pro ↗
o3 · LiveCodeBench · AA implementation ↗
83.91 % · o3 · LiveCodeBench · Accuracy · Vals AI · LiveCodeBench ↗
o3 · MATH-500 ↗
94.6 % · o3 · MATH 500 · Accuracy · Vals AI · MATH 500 ↗
o3 · GPQA Diamond · Accuracy ↗
81.82% · o3 (high) · GPQA diamond · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · GPQA diamond ↗
80.81% · o3 (medium) · GPQA diamond · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · GPQA diamond ↗
79.8% · o3 (low) · GPQA diamond · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · GPQA diamond ↗
o3 (high) · FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
16.9% · o3 (medium) · FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private ↗
9.72% · o3 (low) · FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private ↗
o3 (high) · FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
o3 (high) · FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
29.82% · o3 (medium) · FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private ↗
19.3% · o3 (low) · FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private ↗
o3 (high) · MATH level 5 · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
o3 (medium) · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
83.89% · o3 (high) · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 ↗
60% · o3 (low) · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 ↗
o3 (medium) · SWE-Bench verified · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
o3 (high) · SimpleQA Verified · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
o3 (medium) · Chess Puzzles · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
36% · o3 (low) · Chess Puzzles · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · Chess Puzzles ↗
36% · o3 (high) · Chess Puzzles · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · Chess Puzzles ↗
o3 (high) · Mystery Game Puzzles · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
23% · o3 (medium) · Mystery Game Puzzles · Best score (across scorers) · % · Epoch AI · Mystery Game Puzzles ↗
o3 · Aider coding benchmarks · Polyglot · percent correct ↗
76.9% · o3 (unknown thinking) · Aider coding benchmarks · Polyglot · percent correct · Epoch AI · Aider polyglot ↗
81.3% · o3 (high) · Aider coding benchmarks · Polyglot · percent correct · Epoch AI · Aider polyglot ↗
76.9% · o3 (medium) · Aider coding benchmarks · Polyglot · percent correct · Epoch AI · Aider polyglot ↗
81.3% · o3 (high) · Aider coding benchmarks · Polyglot · percent correct · Aider code editing benchmark ↗
o3 (high) · ARC-AGI · Score · % ↗
53.83% · o3 (medium) · ARC-AGI · Score · % · Epoch AI · ARC-AGI ↗
41.5% · o3 (low) · ARC-AGI · Score · % · Epoch AI · ARC-AGI ↗
o3 (medium) · CadEval · Overall pass (%) · % ↗
o3 (medium) · DeepResearch Bench · Average score · % ↗
o3 (medium) · Fiction.LiveBench · 16k token score · % ↗
o3 (medium) · GeoBench · ACW Country % · % ↗
60% · o3 (high) · GeoBench · ACW Country % · % · Epoch AI · GeoBench ↗
o3 (high) · GSO-Bench · Score OPT@1 · % ↗
o3 (medium) · Lech Mazur Writing · Mean rubric score / 10 ↗
o3 (medium) · OSWorld · Score · % ↗
17.2% · o3 (medium) · OSWorld · Score · % · Epoch AI · OSWorld ↗
9.1% · o3 (medium) · OSWorld · Score · % · Epoch AI · OSWorld ↗
o3 (high) · SimpleBench · Score (AVG@5) · % ↗
o3 (medium) · VPCT · Correct · % ↗
o3 (high) · WeirdML · Accuracy · % ↗
o3 (high) · ARC-AGI-2 · Score · % ↗
2.98% · o3 (medium) · ARC-AGI-2 · Score · % · Epoch AI · ARC-AGI-2 ↗
1.99% · o3 (low) · ARC-AGI-2 · Score · % · Epoch AI · ARC-AGI-2 ↗
o3 (high) · HLE · Accuracy · % ↗
19.2% · o3 (medium) · HLE · Accuracy · % · Epoch AI · HLE ↗
o3 (high) · CritPt · Accuracy · % ↗
o3 (medium) · GDPval · Win Rate (%) · % ↗
o3 (high) · CL-bench · Overall · % ↗
o3 (medium) · METR task performance & time horizons · Average task accuracy ↗
63.62% · o3 (unknown thinking) · METR task performance & time horizons · Average task accuracy · Epoch AI · METR Time Horizons ↗
119.73263 minutes · o3 (unknown thinking) · METR task performance & time horizons · 50% success task horizon · METR-Horizon-v1.1 · Epoch AI · METR Autonomy / Task-Horizon Suite · public result data ↗
91.27135 minutes · o3 (medium) · METR task performance & time horizons · 50% success task horizon · Epoch AI · METR Autonomy / Task-Horizon Suite · public result data ↗
o3 (high) · LMCA · Score · % ↗
o3 (high) · DTBench · Accuracy · % ↗
o3 (medium) · EnigmaEval · Accuracy · % ↗
11.91% · o3 (high) · EnigmaEval · Accuracy · % · Epoch AI · EnigmaEval ↗
o3 · General ECI · 26 October 2026 fit ↗
o3 · LegalBench · Accuracy ↗
o3 · CorpFin · Accuracy ↗
o3 · MortgageTax · Accuracy ↗
74.57 % · o3 · TaxEval · Accuracy · Vals AI · TaxEval ↗
o3 · MedCode · Accuracy ↗
o3 · MedScribe · Accuracy ↗
o3 · MedQA · Accuracy ↗
o3 · AIME · Accuracy ↗
o3 · MGSM · Accuracy ↗
o3 · MMMU Pro · Accuracy ↗
o3 · SAGE · Accuracy ↗
o3 · Scale Labs · Score ↗
o3 · Scale Labs · Score ↗
o3 · Scale Labs · Risk elicitation score ↗
o3 · HealthBench · 16-run mean ↗
o3 · HealthBench Consensus · Overall criterion score · original comparison ↗
o3 · HealthBench Hard · Weighted rubric score · original model comparison ↗
o3 · SealQA · Seal-0 · accuracy · main evaluation ↗
o3 · SimpleQA · Correct answers · OpenAI Simple Evals · archived July 2025 ↗
o3 · HumanEval · Pass@1 · OpenAI Simple Evals · archived July 2025 ↗
o3 · DROP (Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs) · F1 · three-shot · OpenAI Simple Evals · archived July 2025 ↗
o3 (high) · TasteVal · Experimental compute multiplier · October 2026 paper comparison ↗
0.43 × · o3 (high) · TasteVal · Normalized final-performance multiplier · October 2026 paper comparison · TasteVal: Measuring the Experimental Research Taste of AI Systems Against Human Experts ↗
o3 · TextQuests · No clues · game progress · source 500-step protocol ↗
60.4% · o3 · TextQuests · With clues · game progress · source 500-step protocol · TextQuests: How Good are LLMs at Text-Based Video Games? ↗
o3 · EconBench · EconBench prototype · risk-consistency error · published prototype observations ↗
o3 · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · malware analysis · Overall accuracy · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval defensive-analysis comparison ↗
31% · o3 · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · malware analysis · Easy accuracy · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval defensive-analysis comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗
26% · o3 · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · malware analysis · Medium accuracy · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval defensive-analysis comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗
14% · o3 · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · malware analysis · Hard accuracy · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval defensive-analysis comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗
52.87% · o3 · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · threat intelligence · image input · Overall accuracy · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval image-input comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗
69% · o3 · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · threat intelligence · image input · NSA reports · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval image-input comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗
55% · o3 · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · threat intelligence · image input · CrowdStrike reports · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval image-input comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗
46% · o3 · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · threat intelligence · image input · IC3 reports · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval image-input comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗
50% · o3 · CyberSecEval · CyberSOCEval · threat intelligence · image input · CISA reports · CyberSecEval 4 · CyberSOCEval image-input comparison · CyberSOCEval: Benchmarking LLMs Capabilities for Malware Analysis and Threat Intelligence Reasoning ↗
Similar positions on shared benchmark leaderboards. Smaller gaps are closer.
15 of 21 shared benchmark comparisons
20 of 21 shared benchmark comparisons
14 of 21 shared benchmark comparisons
Mean absolute gap in percentile positions on shared benchmark settings; lower is closer. At least 60% overlap is required, with a minimum of three when available. Independent evaluations are used when there are at least three; otherwise published report comparisons are used. Repeated model observations within one setting are averaged before ranking. Writing-style traits and composite indices are excluded. This describes similarity, not an overall quality ranking.
Every plotted observation links to its evaluation. Reported configurations, benchmark versions and task subsets can differ; similarity describes shared scores, not training lift.
Arora, Rahul K., Wei, Jason, Hicks, Rebecca Soskin, Bowman, Preston, Quiñonero-Candela, Joaquin, Tsimpourlas, Foivos, Sharman, Michael, Shah, Meghan, Vallone, Andrea, Beutel, Alex, Heidecke, Johannes, Singhal, Karan
Deason, Lauren, Bali, Adam, Bejean, Ciprian, Bolocan, Diana, Crnkovich, James, Croitoru, Ioana, Durai, Krishna, Midler, Chase, Miron, Calin, Molnar, David, Moon, Brad, Ostarcevic, Bruno, Peltea, Alberto, Rosenberg, Matt, Sandu, Catalin, Saputkin, Arthur, Shah, Sagar, Stan, Daniel, Szocs, Ernest, Wan, Shengye, Whitman, Spencer, Krasser, Sven, Saxe, Joshua
Xie, Tianbao, Zhang, Danyang, Chen, Jixuan, Li, Xiaochuan, Zhao, Siheng, Cao, Ruisheng, Hua, Toh Jing, Cheng, Zhoujun, Shin, Dongchan, Lei, Fangyu, Liu, Yitao, Xu, Yiheng, Zhou, Shuyan, Savarese, Silvio, Xiong, Caiming, Zhong, Victor, Yu, Tao
o3 · o3 (high) · o3 (low) · o3 (medium) · o3 (unknown thinking)