Benchmark Almanac

CodeClash

Claude Sonnet 4.5 1,385 leads since Nov 2025 Not in model cards

Models build and improve their own codebases over many rounds, then compete in arenas such as Halite, poker and BattleSnake. Results give Elo ratings.

Goals replace explicit tasks, so models decide what to build. The board was last updated on 2025-11-03.

In the authors’ words

Current benchmarks for coding evaluate language models (LMs) on concrete, well-specified tasks such as fixing specific bugs or writing targeted tests. However, human programmers do not spend all day incessantly addressing isolated tasks. Instead, real-world software development is grounded in the pursuit of high-level goals, like improving user retention or reducing costs. Evaluating whether LMs can also iteratively develop code to better accomplish open-ended objectives without any explicit guidance remains an open challenge. To address this, we introduce CodeClash, a benchmark where LMs compete in multi-round tournaments to build the best codebase for achieving a competitive objective. Each round proceeds in two phases: agents edit their code, then their codebases compete head-to-head in a code arena that determines winners based on objectives like score maximization, resource acquisition, or survival. Whether it's writing notes, scrutinizing documentation, analyzing competition logs, or creating test suites, models must decide for themselves how to improve their codebases both absolutely and against their opponents. We run 1680 tournaments (25,200 rounds total) to evaluate 8 LMs across 6 arenas. Our results reveal that while models exhibit diverse development styles, they share fundamental limitations in strategic reasoning. Models also struggle with long-term codebase maintenance, as repositories become progressively messy and redundant. These limitations are stark: top models lose every round against expert human programmers. We open-source CodeClash to advance the study of autonomous, goal-oriented code development.

Abstract of CodeClash: Benchmarking Goal-Oriented Software Engineering (arXiv:2511.00839, CC0)
Made by SWE-bench team (Stanford University and Princeton University) Released Nov 2025 Building whole projects All tasks public Last model added Sep 2025 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
Scored
Ranked by matches Models play against each other, and the results become ratings.
Answers
Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
8
Models scored on its own leaderboard

Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads with 1,385 among models released by Sep 2025

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.

The newest model with a score here came out in Sep 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

Bars start at 900.

  1. 1 Claude Sonnet 4.5 1,385
  2. 2 GPT-5 1,366
  3. 3 o3 1,343
  4. 4 Claude Sonnet 4 1,224
  5. 5 GPT-5 mini 1,199
  6. 6 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 1,124
  7. 7 grok-code-fast-1 1,006
  8. 8 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 952
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Sonnet 4.5 1,385 Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5 1,366 Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
3 o3 1,343 Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Sonnet 4 1,224 May 2025 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-5 mini 1,199 Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 1,124 Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
7 grok-code-fast-1 1,006 Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 952 Jul 2025 Official leaderboard

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Nov 2025

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
900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 2025 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 2025

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

All 243 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