≈15.9approx. · 2.7× cost
≈12.3approx. · 3.4× cost
≈17.7approx. · 3.0× cost
≈35.5approx. · 10.5× cost
Can the model complete substantial programming work under this benchmark's agent setup?
Best reported score per model across effort settings
| # | Model | Best setting | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5Anthropic | maxcost n/a1 value · Jul 24 · source | 43.3% |
| 2 | GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI | reportedcost n/a1 value · Jul 24 · source | 34.4% |
| 3 | Claude Fable 5Anthropic | reportedcost n/a1 value · Jul 24 · source | 33.7% |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | reportedcost n/a1 value · Jul 24 · source | 21.1% |
Score vs. reported cost. Lines connect complete sweeps only.
≈15.9approx. · 2.7× cost
≈12.3approx. · 3.4× cost
≈17.7approx. · 3.0× cost
≈35.5approx. · 10.5× cost
Can the model complete substantial programming work under this benchmark's agent setup?
Software implementation, debugging, or repository work under the published evaluation protocol. Higher is better. The value is the percentage reported in this lab's table.
This is a publisher-defined internal evaluation. The task set or grading details are not fully public, so treat it as directional evidence.
Internal run; mini-SWE-agent harness on GKE, mean reward over five attempts, with Opus 4.8 fallback on safety-classifier refusals for Opus 5 and Fable 5.
Method / source ↗