CodeEditorBench
Models edit code in four scenarios: debugging, translation, requirement switching and polishing. Unit tests check the edits, and polishing also measures speed and memory gains.
Problems come from five sources across several programming languages. Model reports usually give the four scenario scores with no overall number.
In the authors’ words
Large Language Models (LLMs) for code are rapidly evolving, with code editing emerging as a critical capability. We introduce CodeEditorBench, an evaluation framework designed to rigorously assess the performance of LLMs in code editing tasks, including debugging, translating, polishing, and requirement switching. Unlike existing benchmarks focusing solely on code generation, CodeEditorBench emphasizes real-world scenarios and practical aspects of software development. We curate diverse coding challenges and scenarios from five sources, covering various programming languages, complexity levels, and editing tasks. Evaluation of 19 LLMs reveals that closed-source models (particularly Gemini-Ultra and GPT-4), outperform open-source models in CodeEditorBench, highlighting differences in model performance based on problem types and prompt sensitivities. CodeEditorBench aims to catalyze advancements in LLMs by providing a robust platform for assessing code editing capabilities. We will release all prompts and datasets to enable the community to expand the dataset and benchmark emerging LLMs. By introducing CodeEditorBench, we contribute to the advancement of LLMs in code editing and provide a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners.
- Level
- Competition The strongest students, in olympiad-style contests
- 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.
2 models share the top score of 85.5% among models released by Jan 2024
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 Jan 2024, 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
- 85.5 GPT-4
- 85.5
Gemini 1.0 Ultra
- 77.6 OpenCodeInterpreter-DS-33B
- 77.0 OpenCodeInterpreter-DS-6.7B
- 73.7
DeepSeek Coder 33B
- 73.7
Gemini 1.0 Pro
- 72.4 GPT-3.5 Turbo
- 64.5 WizardCoder-33B-V1.1
- 60.5 Magicoder-S-DS-6.7B
- 57.2 GLM-4
- 50.0 Phind-CodeLlama-34B-v2
- 47.4 CodeLlama-34B-hf
- 43.4 octocoder
- 42.1 CodeLlama-13B-Instruct-hf
- 32.9 Magicoder-S-CL-7B
- 32.9 WizardCoder-15B-V1.0
- 28.9 CodeFuse-CodeLlama-34B
- 28.9 CodeLlama-7B-Instruct-hf
- 21.1
Code Llama 34B Instruct
- 1 GPT-4 Jun 2023, zero-shot 85.5%
- 2
Gemini 1.0 Ultra three-shot 85.5%
- 3 OpenCodeInterpreter-DS-33B zero-shot 77.6%
- 4 OpenCodeInterpreter-DS-6.7B three-shot 77%
- 5
DeepSeek Coder 33B zero-shot 73.7%
- 6
Gemini 1.0 Pro zero-shot 73.7%
- 7 GPT-3.5 Turbo Nov 2023, zero-shot 72.4%
- 8 WizardCoder-33B-V1.1 three-shot 64.5%
- 9 Magicoder-S-DS-6.7B three-shot 60.5%
- 10 GLM-4 three-shot 57.2%
- 11 Phind-CodeLlama-34B-v2 zero-shot 50%
- 12 CodeLlama-34B-hf three-shot 47.4%
- 13 octocoder zero-shot 43.4%
- 14 CodeLlama-13B-Instruct-hf zero-shot 42.1%
- 15 Magicoder-S-CL-7B zero-shot 32.9%
- 16 WizardCoder-15B-V1.0 zero-shot 32.9%
- 17 CodeFuse-CodeLlama-34B three-shot 28.9%
- 18 CodeLlama-7B-Instruct-hf zero-shot 28.9%
- 19
Code Llama 34B Instruct zero-shot 21.1%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-4 Jun 2023 | 85.5% | zero-shot | Jun 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 85.5% | three-shot | Dec 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | OpenCodeInterpreter-DS-33B | 77.6% | zero-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | OpenCodeInterpreter-DS-6.7B | 77% | three-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 73.7% | zero-shot | Nov 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | | 73.7% | zero-shot | Dec 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | GPT-3.5 Turbo Nov 2023 | 72.4% | zero-shot | Nov 2023 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | WizardCoder-33B-V1.1 | 64.5% | three-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | Magicoder-S-DS-6.7B | 60.5% | three-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | GLM-4 | 57.2% | three-shot | Jan 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | Phind-CodeLlama-34B-v2 | 50% | zero-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | CodeLlama-34B-hf | 47.4% | three-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | octocoder | 43.4% | zero-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | CodeLlama-13B-Instruct-hf | 42.1% | zero-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | Magicoder-S-CL-7B | 32.9% | zero-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | WizardCoder-15B-V1.0 | 32.9% | zero-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | CodeFuse-CodeLlama-34B | 28.9% | three-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | CodeLlama-7B-Instruct-hf | 28.9% | zero-shot | Apr 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | | 21.1% | zero-shot | Aug 2023 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-4 Jun 2023 | zero-shot | 85.5% | |||
| | three-shot | 85.5% | |||
| GPT-4 Jun 2023 | three-shot | 81.6% | |||
| | zero-shot | 75% | |||
| | zero-shot | 73.7% | |||
| | three-shot | 73.7% | |||
| | zero-shot | 73.7% | |||
| GPT-3.5 Turbo Nov 2023 | zero-shot | 72.4% | |||
| GPT-3.5 Turbo Nov 2023 | three-shot | 68.4% | |||
| | three-shot | 67.1% | |||
| GLM-4 | three-shot | 57.2% | |||
| GLM-4 | zero-shot | 52.6% | |||
| | zero-shot | 21.1% | |||
| | three-shot | 21.1% |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
The best score passed 85% in Jun 2023
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
One system card reports it
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 Jun 2025 | | CodeEditorBench Debug 30.7, Translate 56.5, Switch 17.7, Polish 1.9, no overall score (Table 14) | Capabilities |
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