AutoCodeBench
Models solve automatically generated hard coding problems across many programming languages. A sandbox runs generated tests on each solution.
Problems come from the AutoCodeGen pipeline, without manual annotation.
In the authors’ words
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various domains, with code generation emerging as a key area of focus. While numerous benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate their code generation abilities, these benchmarks face several critical limitations. First, they often rely on manual annotations, which are time-consuming and difficult to scale across different programming languages and problem complexities. Second, most existing benchmarks focus primarily on Python, while the few multilingual benchmarks suffer from limited difficulty and uneven language distribution. To address these challenges, we propose AutoCodeGen, an automated method for generating high-difficulty multilingual code generation datasets without manual annotations. AutoCodeGen ensures the correctness and completeness of test cases by generating test inputs with LLMs and obtaining test outputs through a multilingual sandbox, while achieving high data quality through reverse-order problem generation and multiple filtering steps. Using this novel method, we introduce AutoCodeBench, a large-scale code generation benchmark comprising 3,920 problems evenly distributed across 20 programming languages. It is specifically designed to evaluate LLMs on challenging, diverse, and practical multilingual tasks. We evaluate over 30 leading open-source and proprietary LLMs on AutoCodeBench and its simplified version AutoCodeBench-Lite. The results show that even the most advanced LLMs struggle with the complexity, diversity, and multilingual nature of these tasks. Besides, we introduce AutoCodeBench-Complete, specifically designed for base models to assess their few-shot code generation capabilities. We hope the AutoCodeBench series will serve as a valuable resource and inspire the community to focus on more challenging and practical multilingual code generation scenarios.
- Level
- University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Code A program or patch run against tests.
Claude Opus 4 leads with 52.4% among models released by Aug 2025
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 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.
The newest model with a score here came out in Aug 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 52.4 Claude Opus 4
- 51.1 o3
- 51.1 Claude Sonnet 4
- 50.9 Grok 4
- 50.2
DeepSeek-R1
- 50.0 o4-mini
- 48.7
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 48.1
DeepSeek-V3
- 48.0 GPT-4.1
- 47.8 Kimi K2
- 47.7
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking
- 46.6 GLM-4.5
- 45.9
Qwen3-235B-A22B
- 45.7
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 45.3
Doubao-Seed-1.6
- 45.0 Seed1.6-Thinking-250715
- 44.8
Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B
- 44.7
Seed1.6-Thinking
- 43.8
Hunyuan-TurboS
- 43.1
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct
- 41.7
Qwen3-32B
- 41.1 GPT-4o
- 40.8 GLM-4.5-Air
- 39.6 ERNIE-X1-Turbo-32K
- 37.7
DeepSeek-Coder-V2 236B
- 37.6
Qwen3-14B
- 35.8
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
- 34.3
Qwen2.5-72B
- 33.4 Hunyuan-Coder-7B-Preview
- 32.3
Seed-Coder-8B-Instruct
- 28.5
DeepSeek Coder 33B
- 28.5
Qwen3-8B
- 24.3
Qwen3-4B
- 22.5
Qwen2.5-Coder (7B)
- 20.5
DeepSeek Coder 6.7B
- 19.3 OpenCoder-8B
- 11.2
Qwen3-1.7B
- 10.3
Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
- 1 Claude Opus 4 thinking 52.4%
- 2 o3 high 51.1%
- 3 Claude Sonnet 4 thinking 51.1%
- 4 Grok 4 thinking 50.9%
- 5
DeepSeek-R1 May 2025, thinking 50.2%
- 6 o4-mini thinking 50%
- 7
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025, thinking 48.7%
- 8
DeepSeek-V3 Mar 2025, non-thinking 48.1%
- 9 GPT-4.1 non-thinking 48%
- 10 Kimi K2 Jul 2025, non-thinking 47.8%
- 11
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking Jul 2025, thinking 47.7%
- 12 GLM-4.5 thinking 46.6%
- 13
Qwen3-235B-A22B thinking 45.9%
- 14
Gemini 2.5 Flash Jun 2025, non-thinking 45.7%
- 15
Doubao-Seed-1.6 thinking 45.3%
- 16 Seed1.6-Thinking-250715 thinking 45%
- 17
Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B non-thinking 44.8%
- 18
Seed1.6-Thinking thinking 44.7%
- 19
Hunyuan-TurboS non-thinking 43.8%
- 20
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct Jul 2025, non-thinking 43.1%
- 21
Qwen3-32B thinking 41.7%
- 22 GPT-4o Nov 2024, non-thinking 41.1%
- 23 GLM-4.5-Air thinking 40.8%
- 24 ERNIE-X1-Turbo-32K thinking 39.6%
- 25
DeepSeek-Coder-V2 236B non-thinking 37.7%
- 26
Qwen3-14B thinking 37.6%
- 27
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B non-thinking 35.8%
- 28
Qwen2.5-72B non-thinking 34.3%
- 29 Hunyuan-Coder-7B-Preview non-thinking 33.4%
- 30
Seed-Coder-8B-Instruct non-thinking 32.3%
- 31
DeepSeek Coder 33B non-thinking 28.5%
- 32
Qwen3-8B thinking 28.5%
- 33
Qwen3-4B thinking 24.3%
- 34
Qwen2.5-Coder (7B) non-thinking 22.5%
- 35
DeepSeek Coder 6.7B non-thinking 20.5%
- 36 OpenCoder-8B non-thinking 19.3%
- 37
Qwen3-1.7B thinking 11.2%
- 38
Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) non-thinking 10.3%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4 | 52.4% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | o3 | 51.1% | high | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 51.1% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Grok 4 | 50.9% | thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 50.2% | thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | o4-mini | 50% | thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | | 48.7% | thinking | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | | 48.1% | non-thinking | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | GPT-4.1 | 48% | non-thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | Kimi K2 Jul 2025 | 47.8% | non-thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | | 47.7% | thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | GLM-4.5 | 46.6% | thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 45.9% | thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | | 45.7% | non-thinking | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 45.3% | thinking | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | Seed1.6-Thinking-250715 | 45% | thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | | 44.8% | non-thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | | 44.7% | thinking | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | | 43.8% | non-thinking | Feb 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | | 43.1% | non-thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | | 41.7% | thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 22 | GPT-4o Nov 2024 | 41.1% | non-thinking | Nov 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | GLM-4.5-Air | 40.8% | thinking | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 24 | ERNIE-X1-Turbo-32K | 39.6% | thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 25 | | 37.7% | non-thinking | Jun 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 26 | | 37.6% | thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 27 | | 35.8% | non-thinking | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 28 | | 34.3% | non-thinking | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 29 | Hunyuan-Coder-7B-Preview | 33.4% | non-thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 30 | | 32.3% | non-thinking | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 31 | | 28.5% | non-thinking | Nov 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 32 | | 28.5% | thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 33 | | 24.3% | thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 34 | | 22.5% | non-thinking | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 35 | | 20.5% | non-thinking | Nov 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 36 | OpenCoder-8B | 19.3% | non-thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 37 | | 11.2% | thinking | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 38 | | 10.3% | non-thinking | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
Scores at each effort level
Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4 | thinking | 52.4% | |||
| o3 | high | 51.1% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4 | thinking | 51.1% | |||
| Claude Opus 4 | non-thinking | 50.9% | |||
| Grok 4 | thinking | 50.9% | |||
| | thinking | 50.2% | |||
| o4-mini | thinking | 50% | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4 | non-thinking | 49.3% | |||
| | thinking | 48.7% | |||
| | non-thinking | 48.1% | |||
| GPT-4.1 | non-thinking | 48% | |||
| Kimi K2 Jul 2025 | non-thinking | 47.8% | |||
| | thinking | 47.7% | |||
| GLM-4.5 | thinking | 46.6% | |||
| | thinking | 45.9% | |||
| | non-thinking | 45.7% | |||
| | thinking | 45.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | 44.8% | |||
| | thinking | 44.7% | |||
| | non-thinking | 43.8% | |||
| | non-thinking | 43.1% | |||
| | non-thinking | 42.9% | |||
| | thinking | 41.7% | |||
| GPT-4o Nov 2024 | non-thinking | 41.1% | |||
| GLM-4.5-Air | thinking | 40.8% | |||
| | non-thinking | 37.7% | |||
| | thinking | 37.6% | |||
| | non-thinking | 35.8% | |||
| | non-thinking | 34.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | 32.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | 31% | |||
| | non-thinking | 28.6% | |||
| | non-thinking | 28.5% | |||
| | thinking | 28.5% | |||
| | thinking | 24.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | 23.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | 22.5% | |||
| | non-thinking | 20.5% | |||
| | thinking | 11.2% | |||
| | non-thinking | 10.3% | |||
| | non-thinking | 7.90% |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
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%
- SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Opus 5.5 93.9%
- 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%
- 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