VIBE-ProBrowse 284 families
VIBE-Pro
Can the model complete substantial programming work under this benchmark's agent setup?
Version / measure
- Domain
- Coding
- Ranked models
- 5
- Reported values
- 5
- Reports
- 1 · lab
- Direction
- Higher is better
- Status
- Version not specified
Rankings
Best reported score per model across effort settings
| # | Model | Best setting | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | reportedcost n/a1 value · Feb 12 · source | 55.6% |
| 2 | Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | reportedcost n/a1 value · Feb 12 · source | 55.2% |
| 3 | MiniMax M2.5MiniMaxOW | reportedcost n/a1 value · Feb 12 · source | 54.2% |
| 4 | MiniMax M2.1MiniMaxOW | reportedcost n/a1 value · Feb 12 · source | 42.4% |
| 5 | Gemini 3 ProGoogle | reportedcost n/a1 value · Feb 12 · source | 36.9% |
Effort curve
Score vs. reported cost. Lines connect complete sweeps only.
No cost-linked effort sweep for this version.
Definition and comparison boundaryinternal 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.
This is a publisher-defined internal evaluation. The task set or grading details are not fully public, so treat it as directional evidence.
Method / source ↗