
OpenAI has officially launched GPT-6 Astra, introducing an architecture designed to act as an autonomous coworker rather than a standard text predictor. By combining adaptive reasoning budgets with continuous computer control, Astra achieves state-of-the-art results across coding, scientific research, and complex professional environments.
1. Autonomous Computer Use and Operating System Navigation
Prior generations of multimodal models relied on external scripts or isolated API calls to interact with digital workspaces. GPT-6 Astra executes tasks directly inside operating systems, interpreting screens pixel by pixel, issuing precise keystrokes, and operating desktop applications like KiCad, Blender, and terminal consoles without human intervention.
On the rigorous Agents’ Last Exam benchmark, Astra recorded a 59.3% success rate, outpacing GPT-5.6 Sol (53.6%) and competitive models from Anthropic and Google. Similarly, on OSWorld 2.0, Astra scored 72.6%, demonstrating consistent precision when switching windows, executing commands, and parsing visual interface layouts.

2. Speed and Real-Time Engineering Pipelines
A key bottleneck in frontier agentic models has been latency during multi-turn self-correction. Astra implements speculative decoding and dynamic reasoning allocation, allowing it to complete multi-step software and hardware engineering pipelines in minutes rather than hours.
In an official live demonstration, Astra completed a multi-stage engineering challenge—from requirements parsing to database schema setup and verification—in 2 minutes and 54 seconds, while earlier models timed out or required manual intervention.
3. Professional Workflows, 3D CAD, and Creative Assets
Astra demonstrates significant practical capability in professional knowledge work. In 3D computer-aided design, the model achieves 95.9% on the BenchCAD evaluation, up from 83.3% on GPT-5.6 Sol. It can reconstruct complex mechanical objects from multi-view renders by writing functional parametric Python code.
When building interactive web applications and digital assets, Astra avoids generic template outputs. It renders fully styled components, handles state management, and integrates responsive layouts seamlessly.


4. Coding, Science, and Abstract Reasoning
On developer evaluations, Astra set new records on Terminal-Bench 4.0 with a 57.9% score, substantially higher than GPT-5.6 Sol (37.3%) and Claude Fable 5.1 (55.8%). In mathematical and scientific reasoning, Astra scored 97.6% on FrontierMath Tier 4 and 96.0% on GPQA Diamond.
According to the ARC Prize Foundation, Astra reached human parity on 96% of ARC-AGI-3 levels, marking a significant milestone in general abstraction and pattern transfer.



5. Cybersecurity, Safety, and Hallucination Control
Autonomous agentic systems present novel safety challenges, including unauthorized network access and tool misuse. OpenAI evaluated Astra against specialized honeypots and red-teaming benchmarks. On the ExploitGym honeypot, Astra achieved a 0.0% unauthorized exploit rate, compared to 48.2% on GPT-5.6 Sol.

In alignment evaluations measuring misaligned outcomes during desktop execution, Astra achieved critical safety improvements across key threat models:
Misaligned Outcomes
Down from 22.0% on GPT-5.6 Sol. Nearly a 10× reduction in unintended actions during autonomous desktop tasks.
Auto-Review Compliance
Improved from 4.3% with automated review denial handling, ensuring agents respect administrative approval gates.
Capability Hallucinations
Reduced by nearly two-thirds from 12.2% on Sol, preventing inaccurate or ungrounded claims about model capabilities.
6. Official Benchmark Evaluation Tables
The tables below present full test scores across standard academic, coding, professional, security, and long-context evaluations as published by OpenAI and verified by independent testing labs including Artificial Analysis and Epoch AI. Comparison models include Claude Opus 5 by Anthropic and Gemini 3.8 Flash by Google DeepMind.
Computer Use Benchmark Results
|
Computer Use |
GPT‑6 Astra |
GPT‑5.6 Sol |
Claude Fable 5.1 |
Claude Fable 5 |
Claude Opus 5 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash |
|
Agents’ Last Exam |
59.3% |
53.6% |
– |
48.7% |
55.5% |
– |
|
OSWorld 2.0 (v2026.08.08, offline set, partial score) |
72.6% |
65.7% |
– |
– |
70.2% |
– |
|
ScreenSpot-Pro (no tools) |
92.7% |
76.9% |
– |
87.3% |
– |
– |
Professional Benchmark Results
|
Professional |
GPT‑6 Astra |
GPT‑5.6 Sol |
Claude Fable 5.1 |
Claude Fable 5 |
Claude Opus 5 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash |
|
AutomationBench |
41.4% |
18.1% |
31.4% |
17.4% |
26.9% |
– |
|
BenchCAD |
95.9% |
83.3% |
84.3% |
67.5% |
82.1% |
– |
|
BrowseComp |
91.5% |
90.4% |
– |
87.4% |
90.8% |
– |
|
OpenScore String Quartets (1 – OMR-NED) |
0.84 |
0.19 |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
Internal Design Tasks |
50.0% |
47.4% |
– |
35.8% |
– |
– |
|
Internal Data Science Tasks |
40.9% |
30.5% |
– |
34.7% |
– |
– |
|
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.1.1 |
61.2 |
60.9 |
65.7 |
62.1 |
63.1 |
58.7 |
Coding Benchmark Results
| Coding | GPT‑6 Astra | GPT‑5.6 Sol | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.8 Flash |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 | 57.9% | 37.3% | 55.8% | 42.0% | 52.3% | 19.1% |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | 74.1% | 72.7% | 67.4% | 69.9% | 73.7% | 73.8% |
| FrontierCode 1.1 Extended (score) | 64.5% | 60.6% | 63.6% | 64.9% | 63.6% | 56.3% |
| FrontierCode 1.1 Main (score) | 53.3% | 47.5% | 50.9% | 53.5% | 53.4% | 43.6% |
| Internal Database Migration Tasks | 63.9% | 42.7% | 57.8% | 50.3% | ||
| Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index v1.4 | 67.0 | 65.1 | 67.2 | 68.1 | 61.2 |
Academic Benchmark Results
|
Academic |
GPT‑6 Astra |
GPT‑5.6 Sol |
Claude Fable 5.1 |
Claude Fable 5 |
Claude Opus 5 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash |
|
Terminal-Bench Science 0.1 |
64.6% |
22.4% |
52.6% |
21.4% |
30.0% |
– |
|
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v2) |
97.6% |
83.0% |
87.8% |
87.8% |
73.2% |
– |
|
GPQA Diamond |
96.0% |
94.6% |
93.7% |
92.6% |
93.7% |
95.3% |
|
Humanity’s Last Exam (w/ tools) |
57.2% |
– |
65.0% |
63.8% |
63.6% |
– |
Science and Health Benchmark Results
| Science and Health | GPT‑6 Astra | GPT‑5.6 Sol | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.8 Flash |
| GeneBench Pro | 37.8% | 28.7% | ||||
| MedChemBench (Internal) | 49.3% | 47.4% | ||||
| LifeSciBench | 60.3% | 59.9% | ||||
| HealthBench Professional (length-adjusted) | 63.4% | 60.5% | 58.1% | 60.9% | 56.4% | 52.1% |
Cybersecurity Benchmark Results
| Cybersecurity | GPT‑6 Astra | GPT‑5.6 Sol | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 5 | Gemini 3.8 Flash |
| ExploitBench | 100.0% | 78.5% | 70% | |||
| Exploit Gym | 42.4% | 30.3% | 30.4% | 28.4% | 22.0% | |
| ExploitBench (June-Aug 2026) | 39.0% | 11.5% | ||||
| SRE-Bench | 88.0% | 55.9% | 12.5% | |||
| SEC-Bench Pro | 85.4% | 79.1% |
Alignment Benchmark Results
|
Alignment |
GPT‑6 Astra |
GPT‑5.6 Sol |
Claude Fable 5.1 |
Claude Fable 5 |
Claude Opus 5 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash |
|
Internal computer use safety benchmark (lower is better) |
2.4% |
22.0% |
9.5% |
18.3% |
11.5% |
– |
|
Internal computer use safety benchmark, w/ AutoReview (lower is better) |
1.8% |
4.3% |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
Internal circumvention benchmark (lower is better) |
0.00% |
0.29% |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
ExploitGym honeypot (lower is better) |
0.0% |
48.2% |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
Impossible ExploitGym |
100.0% |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
Internal hallucination benchmark (lower is better) |
4.2% |
12.2% |
– |
– |
– |
– |
Long Context Benchmark Results
|
Long Context |
GPT‑6 Astra |
GPT‑5.6 Sol |
Claude Fable 5.1 |
Claude Fable 5 |
Claude Opus 5 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash |
|
OpenAI MRCR v2 8-needle 256K-512K |
100.0% |
91.5% |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
OpenAI MRCR v2 8-needle 512K-1M |
96.3% |
73.8% |
– |
– |
– |
– |
Abstract reasoning Benchmark Results
|
Abstract reasoning |
GPT‑6 Astra |
GPT‑5.6 Sol |
Claude Fable 5.1 |
Claude Fable 5 |
Claude Opus 5 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash |
|
ARC-AGI-3 |
99.9% [T7] |
7.8% |
– |
– |
30.2% |
– |
|
ARC-AGI-2 |
95.0% |
92.5% |
90.0% |
89.2% |
90.4% |
– |
|
ARC-AGI-1 |
98.5% |
97.5% |
97.5% |
98.5% |
97.5% |
– |
Primary Source: Full release technical documentation and benchmark logs are available on the official OpenAI GPT-6 Astra Announcement.







The benchmark results section would be even more useful with details on task-specific scores and evaluation methodology, especially for the claimed AGI features.