Gemini 4 Carbon tops a model index—but remains limited to selected cyber defenders
Google reports strong vulnerability-finding, exploitation and patching scores. One independent composite ranks Carbon first, while public access, reproducible safety evidence and operational outcomes remain limited.
The short version
- What happened
- Artificial Analysis gives Gemini 4 Carbon a score of 59, the highest published result on its nine-evaluation composite, one point above the next listed model.
- Who it affects
- Security teams could gain faster help finding and repairing vulnerabilities, while more capable exploitation also raises misuse concerns. Controlled access means most defenders cannot yet test whether the model improves their own detection quality, patch safety or response time.
- What remains unproven
- No public API
Keep in mind
No public API
Selected cohort only
Cyber scores reported by Google
Evaluations without guardrails
Internal safety tests lack denominators
No Carbon-specific detailed safety report
No incident-response outcome study
Source analysis · 2 linked sources. Primary analysed source date: 28 October 2026.
Read the full report · 3 min The evidence, methods, implications and limitations
The strongest public signal is a narrow benchmark lead
Google's new cyber-focused frontier model leads the current Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index with 59. The independent composite averages agents, coding, general capability and scientific reasoning at 25% each. A one-point lead is useful evidence of broad benchmark strength, not proof of a decisive advantage in operational security work.
Google separately reports Carbon at 88.2% for vulnerability finding on SEC-bench Pro, 54.8% for exploitation on ExploitGym and 71.0% for patching on CWE-bench. It says the evaluations ran without guardrails, a condition that may differ from deployed use.[1][2]
Controlled access leaves the safety case unfinished
Google reports lower cheating, unsupported claims, overreach and prompt-injection success than earlier models, but publishes the Carbon figures in a launch post rather than a new detailed technical or safety report. Internal alerts and live-coding comparisons lack denominators and external replication.
Starting this week, Carbon is going to selected cyber defenders before a gradual trusted-partner rollout. That caution may reduce misuse exposure, but it also limits independent testing. Evidence that would change the assessment includes a full model card, reproducible guarded evaluations, transparent access criteria and measured defensive outcomes in real incidents.[1][2]
The distinction that matters
Three different kinds of evidence
The launch combines an independently run composite, company-reported cyber benchmarks and internal safety observations.
Independent
Nine-evaluation composite
Score 59; current published leader
Company reported
Three cyber benchmarks
Strong scores without public guarded replication
Operational
Selected-defender rollout
Real-world outcomes not yet reported