Benchmark Almanac

SWE-fficiency

Claude Opus 4.5 22.5% leads since November 2025
MiniMax-M3 34.8% leads since June 2026
In use

498 tasks in nine Python data/ML/HPC repos: agent must speed up a real workload without breaking tests. Scored as speedup relative to expert patch.

Replay study (arXiv 2607.01211) found 411/498 tasks keep a valid signal and a few low-speedup tasks dominate the score weight.

Released
November 2025
Kind
Speed and optimization
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Code
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 4.6 #37 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
June 2026
Last model added
June 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Optimizing the performance of large-scale software repositories demands expertise in code reasoning and software engineering (SWE) to reduce runtime while preserving program correctness. However, most benchmarks emphasize what to fix rather than how to fix code. We introduce SWE-fficiency, a benchmark for evaluating repository-level performance optimization on real workloads. Our suite contains 498 tasks across nine widely used data-science, machine-learning, and HPC repositories (e.g., numpy, pandas, scipy): given a complete codebase and a slow workload, an agent must investigate code semantics, localize bottlenecks and relevant tests, and produce a patch that matches or exceeds expert speedup while passing the same unit tests. To enable this how-to-fix evaluation, our automated pipeline scrapes GitHub pull requests for performance-improving edits, combining keyword filtering, static analysis, coverage tooling, and execution validation to both confirm expert speedup baselines and identify relevant repository unit tests. Empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art agents reveals significant underperformance. On average, agents achieve less than 0.23x the expert speedup: agents struggle in localizing optimization opportunities, reasoning about execution across functions, and maintaining correctness in proposed edits. We release the benchmark and accompanying data pipeline to facilitate research on automated performance engineering and long-horizon software reasoning.

Abstract of SWE-fficiency: Can Language Models Optimize Real-World Repositories on Real Workloads? (arXiv:2511.06090, CC0)
17
Models scored on its own leaderboard
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab

Claude Opus 4.5 leads with 22.5% among models released by February 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.

MiniMax-M3 leads with 34.8%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

The newest model with a score here came out in February 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.5 22.5%
  2. 2 GPT-5 15.7%
  3. 3 Claude Opus 4.6 15.5%
  4. 4 GPT-5.2 14.8%
  5. 5 Claude Sonnet 4.5 11.6%
  6. 6 Gemini 3 Flash 10.6%
  7. 7 Gemini 3 Pro 10.2%
  8. 8 Claude Opus 4.1 9.84%
  9. 9 Qwen3-Coder-Plus 6.76%
  10. 10 Composer 1 6.34%
  11. 11 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 5.37%
  12. 12 DeepSeek-V3.1 4.32%
  13. 13 GLM-4.6 4.20%
  14. 14 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 4.06%
  15. 15 GPT-5 mini 3.89%
  16. 16 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 3.13%
  17. 17 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 2.44%

Source: Official SWE-fficiency leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.5 22.5% OpenHands Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5 15.7% OpenHands Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Opus 4.6 15.5% OpenHands Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-5.2 14.8% OpenHands Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Claude Sonnet 4.5 11.6% OpenHands Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Gemini 3 Flash 10.6% OpenHands Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 3 Pro 10.2% OpenHands Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Claude Opus 4.1 9.84% OpenHands Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Qwen3-Coder-Plus 6.76% OpenHands Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Composer 1 6.34% Cursor CLI Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 5.37% OpenHands Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
12 DeepSeek-V3.1 4.32% OpenHands Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
13 GLM-4.6 4.20% OpenHands Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 4.06% OpenHands Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
15 GPT-5 mini 3.89% OpenHands Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
16 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 3.13% OpenHands Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 2.44% OpenHands Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 MiniMax-M3 34.8% Jun 2026 Lab model card
2 Claude Opus 4.5 22.5% OpenHands Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5 15.7% OpenHands Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.6 15.5% OpenHands Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-5.2 14.8% OpenHands Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 11.6% OpenHands Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 3 Flash 10.6% OpenHands Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Gemini 3 Pro 10.2% OpenHands Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Claude Opus 4.1 9.84% OpenHands Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Qwen3-Coder-Plus 6.76% OpenHands Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
11 Composer 1 6.34% Cursor CLI Oct 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 5.37% OpenHands Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
13 DeepSeek-V3.1 4.32% OpenHands Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
14 GLM-4.6 4.20% OpenHands Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
15 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 4.06% OpenHands Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
16 GPT-5 mini 3.89% OpenHands Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 3.13% OpenHands Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 2.44% OpenHands Feb 2025 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

2 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in November 2025 3 models have held number one with claims included since its release in November 2025

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

OpenAI Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Feb 2026

Source: Official SWE-fficiency leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) MiniMax-M3 Claude Opus 4.5 GPT-5 Claude Opus 4.1 Gemini 2.5 Pro Claude 3.7 Sonnet 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) MiniMax-M3 Claude Opus 4.5

Sources: Official SWE-fficiency leaderboard and labs’ model cards

One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

MiniMax
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Jun 1, 2026 MiniMax-M3 34.8 SWE-fficiency

More in Coding

All 282 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