Grok 3 · GPQA diamond · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
1 more reported result
74.24 % · Grok 3 · GPQA Diamond · Accuracy · Vals AI · GPQA Diamond ↗
xAI / MODEL EVIDENCE
27 benchmarks · 29 observations · 27 sources · released 2025-04-09
27 benchmarks · large dot: Grok 3; small dots: closest models where reported
Grok 3 · GPQA diamond · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
74.24 % · Grok 3 · GPQA Diamond · Accuracy · Vals AI · GPQA Diamond ↗
Grok 3 · FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
Grok 3 · FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
Grok 3 · MATH level 5 · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
Grok 3 · OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · Best score (across scorers) · % ↗
Grok 3 · Aider coding benchmarks · Polyglot · percent correct ↗
Grok 3 · ARC-AGI · Score · % ↗
Grok 3 · Balrog · Average progress · % ↗
Grok 3 · Fiction.LiveBench · 16k token score · % ↗
Grok 3 · Lech Mazur Writing · Mean rubric score / 10 ↗
Grok 3 · SimpleBench · Score (AVG@5) · % ↗
Grok 3 · WeirdML · Accuracy · % ↗
Grok 3 · ARC-AGI-2 · Score · % ↗
Grok 3 · General ECI · 26 October 2026 fit ↗
Grok 3 · LegalBench · Accuracy ↗
Grok 3 · CorpFin · Accuracy ↗
Grok 3 · TaxEval · Accuracy ↗
Grok 3 · MedQA · Accuracy ↗
Grok 3 · AIME · Accuracy ↗
Grok 3 · MATH 500 · Accuracy ↗
Grok 3 · MGSM · Accuracy ↗
Grok 3 · MMLU Pro · Accuracy ↗
Grok 3 · LiveCodeBench · Accuracy ↗
Grok 3 · HealthBench Consensus · Overall criterion score · original comparison ↗
Grok 3 · HealthBench Hard · Weighted rubric score · original model comparison ↗
Grok 3 · SealQA · Seal-0 · accuracy · main evaluation ↗
Grok 3 · TextQuests · No clues · game progress · source 500-step protocol ↗
41.9% · Grok 3 · TextQuests · With clues · game progress · source 500-step protocol · TextQuests: How Good are LLMs at Text-Based Video Games? ↗
Similar positions on shared benchmark leaderboards. Smaller gaps are closer.
14 of 14 shared benchmark comparisons
13 of 14 shared benchmark comparisons
14 of 14 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
Paglieri, Davide, Cupiał, Bartłomiej, Coward, Samuel, Piterbarg, Ulyana, Wolczyk, Maciej, Khan, Akbir, Pignatelli, Eduardo, Kuciński, Łukasz, Pinto, Lerrel, Fergus, Rob, Foerster, Jakob Nicolaus, Parker-Holder, Jack, Rocktäschel, Tim
Grok 3