EvoCode-Bench
Coding agents keep one project working across 26 tasks of 5 to 15 rounds each, while requirements change, pile up and conflict. Cumulative hidden tests check every round in a persistent container.
The paper reports MT@4 and single-round success on a legacy runner. The first board (June 13th, 2026 to 06-16) let agents read the grader on 12 tasks. UniPat withdrew those results.
- Made by
- UniPat AI with Peking University, Tsinghua University and HKU
- Released
- May 2026
- Kind
- Building whole projects
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.5 #20 on the capability index
- Last model added
- April 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Coding agents are increasingly used as iterative development partners, but most benchmarks still evaluate one specification followed by one final assessment. This leaves out a basic question: can an agent keep its own codebase working as requirements change? We introduce EvoCode-Bench, a benchmark of 26 stateful coding tasks and 227 evaluated rounds. Each task preserves the agent's workspace for 5-15 rounds, states requirements through observable behavior, and uses cumulative executable tests to check new requirements and still-active prior ones. We evaluate 13 coding agents with two metrics: MT@4, a four-attempt fail-stop multi-round score, and SR, a single-round score from a reference-completed prior state. For most agents, SR exceeds MT@4 by 22-40 points. The gap also changes rankings: the highest-SR agent (78.9) ranks only third in persistent execution (44.0 MT@4). Even the strongest agents achieve only about 50% success on multi-turn metrics, and aggregate pass rate drops below half of round-1 performance by round 5. Failure analysis shows tier-dependent behavior: weaker agents fail early, while stronger agents survive long enough to expose specification-tracking and regression failures. We release the benchmark data and Harbor multi-turn infrastructure.
Claude Opus 4.7 leads with 54% among models released by April 2026
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.
The newest model with a score here came out in April 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 15 more
- 1 Claude Opus 4.7 high 54%
- 2 GPT-5.5 high 52.4%
- 3 Claude Opus 4.6 44%
- 4 GLM-5.1 thinking 36.2%
- 5 Kimi K2.6 thinking 31.9%
- 6
DeepSeek-V4-Pro high 30.6%
- 7
Qwen 3.6 Plus thinking 29.4%
- 8 MiMo-V2.5-Pro high 17.3%
- 9
Gemini 3.1 Pro high 13.7%
- 10
DeepSeek-V4-Flash high 9.40%
- 11
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B thinking 4.60%
- 12
MiniMax-M2.7 3.70%
- 13
Seed2.0 Pro high 1.90%
Source: Official EvoCode-Bench leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 54% | high, terminus-2 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | GPT-5.5 | 52.4% | high, terminus-2 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 44% | terminus-2 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | GLM-5.1 | 36.2% | thinking, terminus-2 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | Kimi K2.6 | 31.9% | thinking, terminus-2 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | | 30.6% | high, terminus-2 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 29.4% | thinking, terminus-2 | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 17.3% | high, terminus-2 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | | 13.7% | high, terminus-2 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 9.40% | high, terminus-2 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 4.60% | thinking, terminus-2 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 3.70% | terminus-2 | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 1.90% | high, terminus-2 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official EvoCode-Bench leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official EvoCode-Bench leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
Versions
We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.
Source: Official leaderboards
More in Coding
- SWE-bench Verified In use 500 human-validated GitHub issues from 12 Python repos. Agent writes a patch that must pass hidden tests. Claude Opus 4.7 83.5%
- LiveCodeBench v6 In use Competitive programming problems collected after model cutoffs from LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces. Scored pass@1 on hidden tests.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 93.5%
- SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Fable 5.2 96.6%
- DeepSWE In use 113 original long-horizon engineering tasks across 91 repos and five languages, written from scratch. Hand-written verifiers accept alternative solutions. GPT-6 Astra 74.1%
- SciCode In use Scientist-curated research coding problems split into subproblems across natural sciences. Code checked against test cases.
Seed2.1 Pro 59.8%
- Codeforces rating In use Model solves recent Codeforces contest problems. An Elo-style rating is computed from simulated contest performance.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 3,471