SWE-rebench
Agents fix fresh GitHub issues that an automated pipeline mines each month. Tests decide whether the issue is resolved.
Scores depend on the monthly task window, so results from different months are not directly comparable.
- Made by
- Nebius
- Released
- May 2025
- Kind
- Fixing real repositories
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Code
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- Claude Opus 5 #10 on the capability index
- Last in a system card
- February 2026
- Last model added
- July 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
LLM-based agents have shown promising capabilities in a growing range of software engineering (SWE) tasks. However, advancing this field faces two critical challenges. First, high-quality training data is scarce, especially data that reflects real-world SWE scenarios, where agents must interact with development environments, execute code and adapt behavior based on the outcomes of their actions. Existing datasets are either limited to one-shot code generation or comprise small, manually curated collections of interactive tasks, lacking both scale and diversity. Second, the lack of fresh interactive SWE tasks affects evaluation of rapidly improving models, as static benchmarks quickly become outdated due to contamination issues. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel, automated, and scalable pipeline to continuously extract real-world interactive SWE tasks from diverse GitHub repositories. Using this pipeline, we construct SWE-rebench, a public dataset comprising over 21,000 interactive Python-based SWE tasks, suitable for reinforcement learning of SWE agents at scale. Additionally, we use continuous supply of fresh tasks collected using SWE-rebench methodology to build a contamination-free benchmark for agentic software engineering. We compare results of various LLMs on this benchmark to results on SWE-bench Verified and show that performance of some language models might be inflated due to contamination issues.
Claude Fable 5 leads with 64.5% among models released by July 2026
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
Claude Fable 5 leads with 64.5%, 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 July 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 13 more
- 1 Claude Fable 5 high 64.5%
- 2 Grok 4.5 high 63.8%
- 3 Claude Opus 5 high 63.4%
- 4 GLM-5.2 high 62.9%
- 5 GPT-5.6 Sol medium 62.3%
- 6 Junie 61.8%
- 7 Claude Code 60.4%
- 8 Codex 58%
- 9 Claude Sonnet 5 high 56.8%
- 10 Cursor 51.7%
- 11
MiniMax-M3 47.2%
- 12 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 46.5%
- 13 GPT-5.6 Luna medium 43.6%
- 14
DeepSeek-V4-Pro high 40.2%
- 15
Qwen3.6 27B 31.2%
- 16
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 24.7%
- 17
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 17.1%
Source: Official SWE-rebench leaderboard
- 1 Claude Fable 5 high 64.5%
- 2 Grok 4.5 high 63.8%
- 3 Claude Opus 5 high 63.4%
- 4 GLM-5.2 high 62.9%
- 5 GPT-5.6 Sol medium 62.3%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 5 high 56.8%
- 7
MiniMax-M3 47.2%
- 8 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 46.5%
- 9 GPT-5.6 Luna medium 43.6%
- 10 GLM-5 42.1%
- 11
DeepSeek-V4-Pro high 40.2%
- 12
Qwen3.6 27B 31.2%
- 13
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 24.7%
- 14
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 17.1%
Sources: Official SWE-rebench leaderboard and labs’ model cards
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Fable 5 | 64.5% | high | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | Grok 4.5 | 63.8% | high | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | Claude Opus 5 | 63.4% | high | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | GLM-5.2 | 62.9% | high | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 62.3% | medium | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Junie | 61.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | Claude Code | 60.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 8 | Codex | 58% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 9 | Claude Sonnet 5 | 56.8% | high | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | Cursor | 51.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | | 47.2% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 46.5% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | GPT-5.6 Luna | 43.6% | medium | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 40.2% | high | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 31.2% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | | 24.7% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | | 17.1% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Fable 5 | 64.5% | high | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | Grok 4.5 | 63.8% | high | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | Claude Opus 5 | 63.4% | high | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | GLM-5.2 | 62.9% | high | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 62.3% | medium | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Claude Sonnet 5 | 56.8% | high | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 47.2% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 46.5% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | GPT-5.6 Luna | 43.6% | medium | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | GLM-5 | 42.1% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 11 | | 40.2% | high | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 31.2% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | | 24.7% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 17.1% | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
The best score, 64.5%, costs $4.40 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. GPT-5.6 Sol at medium comes within 2.2 points of the best for $0.85 a task, 5 times cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
Source: Official SWE-rebench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5 | high | 64.5% | $4.40 | ||
| Grok 4.5 | high | 63.8% | $1.47 | ||
| Claude Opus 5 | high | 63.4% | $3.47 | ||
| GLM-5.2 | high | 62.9% | $1.40 | ||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | medium | 62.3% | $0.85 | ||
| Claude Sonnet 5 | high | 56.8% | $1.43 | ||
| | 47.2% | $0.95 | |||
| MiMo-V2.5-Pro | 46.5% | $0.10 | |||
| GPT-5.6 Luna | medium | 43.6% | $0.11 | ||
| | high | 40.2% | $0.15 | ||
| | 31.2% | $0.62 | |||
| | 24.7% | $0.27 | |||
| | 17.1% | $0.99 |
6 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in May 2025 4 models have held number one with claims included since its release in May 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official SWE-rebench leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official SWE-rebench leaderboard and labs’ model cards
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
One system card reports it
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2026 | GLM-5 technical report | 42.1 | SWE-rebench, January 2026, Resolved Rate (Table 9). Pass@5 50.0 | Capabilities |
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