FrontierSWEBrowse 296

FrontierSWE

Can the model complete substantial programming work under this benchmark's agent setup?

Version not specifiedExact reported variant
Coding9 ranked models12 reported values2 reportsHigher is better

Top rankings

One row per model, using its best reported score across effort settings.

9
RankModelBest scoreBest reported setting
1Claude Fable 5Anthropic86.6%max effortMoonshot AI report1 value · 1 reportJul 17, 2026 · source
2Kimi K3Moonshot AI81.2%max effortMoonshot AI report1 value · 1 reportJul 17, 2026 · source
3Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic75.1%Reported configurationZ.ai report2 values · 2 reportsJun 16, 2026 · source
4GLM-5.2Z.ai74.4%max effortZ.ai report2 values · 2 reportsJun 16, 2026 · source
5GPT-5.5OpenAI72.6%Reported configurationZ.ai report2 values · 2 reportsJun 16, 2026 · source
6GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI71.3%max effortMoonshot AI report1 value · 1 reportJul 17, 2026 · source
7Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle39.6%Reported configurationZ.ai report1 value · 1 reportJun 16, 2026 · source
8GLM-5.1Z.ai30.5%Reported configurationZ.ai report1 value · 1 reportJun 16, 2026 · source
9DeepSeek V4 ProDeepSeek29.0%Reported configurationZ.ai report1 value · 1 reportJun 16, 2026 · source

Effort curve

Every sourced cost-linked effort value for this exact version. Lines connect complete sweeps only.

0
No cost-linked effort sweep for this version.
Definition and comparison boundarypublic methodology

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.

Harness, tools, prompts, attempt count, and benchmark version can materially change the result. Compare within one reporting context.

Dominance score as of 2026-07-16; Kimi Code harness. Proximal evaluation, dominance as of 2026-06-16.

Method / source