Benchmark Almanac

EvoCode-Bench v2

Claude Opus 4.8 59.1% leads since Jun 2026 Not in model cards

Coding agents work through 26 multi-round tasks with 227 graded rounds on the official Harbor multi-step format. The score is the mean of binary per-round rewards. A case score gives partial credit.

The 2026-06-20 re-release fixed a Harbor grader leak, one contaminated task and 11 task defects. UniPat says older numbers are outdated. Claude Opus 4.8 led 13 models at 59.1.

In the authors’ words

Coding agents are increasingly used as iterative development partners, but most benchmarks still evaluate one specification followed by one final assessment. This leaves out a basic question: can an agent keep its own codebase working as requirements change? We introduce EvoCode-Bench, a benchmark of 26 stateful coding tasks and 227 evaluated rounds. Each task preserves the agent's workspace for 5-15 rounds, states requirements through observable behavior, and uses cumulative executable tests to check new requirements and still-active prior ones. We evaluate 13 coding agents with two metrics: MT@4, a four-attempt fail-stop multi-round score, and SR, a single-round score from a reference-completed prior state. For most agents, SR exceeds MT@4 by 22-40 points. The gap also changes rankings: the highest-SR agent (78.9) ranks only third in persistent execution (44.0 MT@4). Even the strongest agents achieve only about 50% success on multi-turn metrics, and aggregate pass rate drops below half of round-1 performance by round 5. Failure analysis shows tier-dependent behavior: weaker agents fail early, while stronger agents survive long enough to expose specification-tracking and regression failures. We release the benchmark data and Harbor multi-turn infrastructure.

Abstract of EvoCode-Bench: Evaluating Coding Agents in Multi-Turn Iterative Interactions (arXiv:2605.24110, CC0)
Made by UniPat AI with Peking University , Tsinghua University and HKU Released Jun 2026 Building whole projects All tasks public Last model added Jun 2026 Scores refreshed 2 Nov 2026
Level
Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
13
Models scored on its own leaderboard

Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 59.1% among models released by Jun 2026

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 Jun 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.8 xhigh 59.1%
  2. 2 GPT-5.5 high 29.5%
  3. 3 MiniMax-M3 adaptive 23.4%
  4. 4 GLM-5.2 thinking 16.2%
  5. 5 DeepSeek-V4-Pro high 14.1%
  6. 6 Kimi K2.6 thinking 13.2%
  7. 7 DeepSeek-V4-Flash high 12.2%
  8. 8 Qwen3.7-Max thinking 11.9%
  9. 9 Qwen 3.6 Plus thinking 9.70%
  10. 10 Kimi K2.7 Code thinking 7.80%
  11. 11 Seed2.1 Pro high 6.70%
  12. 12 GLM-5.1 thinking 5.90%
  13. 13 MiniMax-M2.7 reasoning split 5.10%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.8 59.1% xhigh, terminus-2 May 2026 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.5 29.5% high, terminus-2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
3 MiniMax-M3 23.4% adaptive, terminus-2 Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
4 GLM-5.2 16.2% thinking, terminus-2 Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
5 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 14.1% high, terminus-2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
6 Kimi K2.6 13.2% thinking, terminus-2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-V4-Flash 12.2% high, terminus-2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Qwen3.7-Max 11.9% thinking, terminus-2 May 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Qwen 3.6 Plus 9.70% thinking, terminus-2 Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
10 Kimi K2.7 Code 7.80% thinking, terminus-2 Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Seed2.1 Pro 6.70% high, terminus-2 Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
12 GLM-5.1 5.90% thinking, terminus-2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
13 MiniMax-M2.7 5.10% reasoning split, terminus-2 Mar 2026 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 Jun 2026

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 Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.8 GPT-5.5 Kimi K2.6 MiniMax-M2.7 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 4.8 GPT-5.5

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.

Versions

We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.

Anthropic
EvoCode-Bench v2 Not tested since Jun 2026
EvoCode-Bench Replaced by v2, Jun 2026
EvoCode-Bench v2 Not tested since Jun 2026

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