Benchmark Almanac

SWE-rebench

Claude Fable 5 64.5% leads since June 2026
Claude Fable 5 64.5% leads since June 2026
Only in system cards

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lack of fresh interactive SWE tasks affects evaluation of rapidly improving models, as static benchmarks quickly become outdated due to contamination issues.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.

Abstract of SWE-rebench: An Automated Pipeline for Task Collection and Decontaminated Evaluation of Software Engineering Agents (arXiv:2505.20411, CC0)
17
Entries on its own leaderboard, 13 models we track
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

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:

  1. 1 Claude Fable 5 high 64.5%
  2. 2 Grok 4.5 high 63.8%
  3. 3 Claude Opus 5 high 63.4%
  4. 4 GLM-5.2 high 62.9%
  5. 5 GPT-5.6 Sol medium 62.3%
  6. 6 Junie 61.8%
  7. 7 Claude Code 60.4%
  8. 8 Codex 58%
  9. 9 Claude Sonnet 5 high 56.8%
  10. 10 Cursor 51.7%
  11. 11 MiniMax-M3 47.2%
  12. 12 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 46.5%
  13. 13 GPT-5.6 Luna medium 43.6%
  14. 14 DeepSeek-V4-Pro high 40.2%
  15. 15 Qwen3.6 27B 31.2%
  16. 16 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 24.7%
  17. 17 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 17.1%

Source: Official SWE-rebench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
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 MiniMax-M3 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 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 40.2% high Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen3.6 27B 31.2% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
16 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 24.7% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
17 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 17.1% Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
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 MiniMax-M3 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 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 40.2% high Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen3.6 27B 31.2% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 24.7% Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
14 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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.

Xiaomi Corp Anthropic Z.ai xAI OpenAI Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% $0.10 $0.20 $0.50 $1.00 $2.00 $5.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Fable 5, high Grok 4.5, high GPT-5.6 Sol, medium MiMo-V2.5-Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale Claude Fable 5, high MiMo-V2.5-Pro

Source: Official SWE-rebench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput 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
MiniMax-M3 47.2% $0.95
MiMo-V2.5-Pro 46.5% $0.10
GPT-5.6 Luna medium 43.6% $0.11
DeepSeek-V4-Pro high 40.2% $0.15
Qwen3.6 27B 31.2% $0.62
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 24.7% $0.27
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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.

Qwen Xiaomi Corp MiniMax Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jul 2026

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.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5 MiniMax-M3 GLM-5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Fable 5 MiniMax-M3

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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
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

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