Benchmark Almanac

SWE-Marathon

Grok 4.5 29% leads since Jul 2026 In use

20 realistic multi-hour software tasks (library reproductions, product clones, ML work). Verifiers combine hidden tests, parity and integrity checks.

No configuration exceeds 30% pass@1. Reward hacking seen in 13.8% of rollouts. Labs ran H20-recalibrated branches. v1.0 scores (k=5) sit on an archive board pinned to v1.0-official, and v1.1 replaced it in July 2026.

In the authors’ words

AI agents are increasingly expected to complete long-horizon workflows that require sustained progress over hours, millions of tokens, and complex environments. Yet current agent benchmarks largely evaluate short-form tasks, such as single pull requests, small tickets, or 5-10 minute exercises, limiting our ability to measure agents' capabilities in planning, long-context understanding, and memory use. We introduce SWE-Marathon, a benchmark of 20 long-horizon tasks spanning software engineering and adjacent technical domains. Each task consists of a unique executable environment, a human-written reference solution, and a multi-layer verification suite. Logged agent attempts average 27.2M total tokens, making SWE-Marathon substantially longer-horizon than existing SWE and command-line agent benchmarks. Current frontier coding agents solve fewer than 30% of tasks. Failures often arise from poor self-verification, self-reported infeasibility, and premature termination. We also observe reward-hacking behavior in 13.8% of rollouts, where agents attempt to exploit the environment or verifier to bypass the intended workflow. SWE-Marathon includes adversarial review of test suites and execution environments, as well as multi-layer checks designed to prevent shortcut solutions. We release SWE-Marathon, evaluation code, and agent trajectories at https://swe-marathon.org/.

Abstract of SWE-Marathon: Can Agents Autonomously Complete Ultra-Long-Horizon Software Work? (arXiv:2606.07682, CC0)
Made by Abundant AI Released Jun 2026 Building whole projects All tasks public Last in a launch post Oct 2026 Last model added Oct 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
Code A program or patch run against tests.
12
Models scored on its own leaderboard
9
Launch posts list it, from 6 labs
6
System cards report it, from 3 labs

Grok 4.5 leads with 29% among models released by Jul 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. Every run is in the next chart.

The newest model with a score here came out in Jul 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 Grok 4.5 29%
  2. 2 Claude Opus 4.8 26%
  3. 3 Claude Fable 5 24%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.7 16%
  5. 5 GLM-5.2 13%
  6. 6 GPT-5.5 12%
  7. 7 Gemini 3.5 Flash 7.00%
  8. 8 Gemini 3.1 Pro 4.00%
  9. 9 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 4.00%
  10. 10 GLM-5.1 1.00%
  11. 11 MiniMax-M2.7 0%
  12. 12 Kimi K2.6 0%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Grok 4.5 29% Grok Build Jul 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Claude Opus 4.8 26% Claude Code May 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Claude Fable 5 24% Claude Code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.7 16% Claude Code Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
5 GLM-5.2 13% Claude Code Jun 2026 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-5.5 12% Codex CLI Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 3.5 Flash 7.00% Gemini CLI May 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Gemini 3.1 Pro 4.00% Terminus 2 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
9 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 4.00% Terminus 2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
10 GLM-5.1 1.00% Terminus 2 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
11 MiniMax-M2.7 0% Terminus 2 Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
12 Kimi K2.6 0% Kimi Code CLI Apr 2026 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 11 models in their cards. We plot every source in the charts below.

Of runs with a cost, the best scores 26% for $42 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

Google DeepMind MiniMax OpenAI Anthropic Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 10% 20% 30% $1.00 $2.00 $5.00 $10 $20 $50 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Fable 5 GPT-5.5 Gemini 3.5 Flash Gemini 3.1 Pro MiniMax-M2.7 0% 10% 20% 30% $1.00 $10 $100 Cost per task, log scale Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Fable 5
ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
Grok 4.5 Grok Build 29%
Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Code 26% $42
Claude Fable 5 Claude Code 24% $29
Claude Opus 4.7 Claude Code 16% $37
GLM-5.2 Claude Code 13% $50
GPT-5.5 Codex CLI 12% $11
Claude Opus 4.7 Terminus 2 11% $19
Gemini 3.5 Flash Gemini CLI 7.00% $6.65
GPT-5.5 Terminus 2 6.00% $43
Gemini 3.1 Pro Terminus 2 4.00% $3.65
DeepSeek-V4-Pro Terminus 2 4.00% $11
Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini CLI 2.00% $5.40
GLM-5.1 Terminus 2 1.00% $43
MiniMax-M2.7 Terminus 2 0% $1.63
Kimi K2.6 Kimi Code CLI 0% $5.31
Kimi K2.6 Terminus 2 0% $5.76

2 models have held number one since its release in Jun 2026

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

Anthropic xAI Z.ai Moonshot AI StepFun
Own leaderboard Replaced by v1.1, Jul 2026
Grok 4.5 29%
Lab claims 5 leaders

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 Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Step 5 Preview GLM-5.3 Grok 4.5 Claude Opus 4.7 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Step 5 Preview GLM-5.3

6 labs put it in a launch post in the last six months

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

Z.ai
xAI
Moonshot AI
Tencent
StepFun
Meta
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
24 Oct 2026 Kimi K3.1 Pro 51.7 SWE Marathon v1.1 (Claude Code)
12 Oct 2026 Muse Wonder 53.1 SWE-Marathon (version not stated)
12 Oct 2026 Muse Wonder Full 57.5 SWE-Marathon (xhigh) (version not stated)
20 Sep 2026 Step 5 Preview 72.7 SWE-Marathon v1.1 (Partial Score)
28 Aug 2026 Tencent Hy4 preview 31.9 SWE-Marathon
14 Aug 2026 GLM-5.3 42.5 SWE-Marathon (v1.1)
16 Jul 2026 Kimi K3 42 SWE-Marathon
16 Jul 2026 Grok 4.5 29 SWE Marathon resolution rate (pass@1)
16 Jun 2026 GLM-5.2 13 SWE-Marathon

6 system cards report it, from 3 labs

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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
12 Oct 2026 Muse Wonder model card 53.1 SWE-Marathon pass@1 from Abundant AI, Muse Wonder (max) (capabilities table image, page 3) Capabilities
12 Oct 2026 Muse Wonder Full model card 57.5 SWE-Marathon pass@1 from Abundant AI, Muse Wonder Full (max) (capabilities table image, page 3). Reported at xhigh effort Capabilities
21 Sep 2026 Grok 4.7 model card 46 SWE-Marathon v1.1, resolution rate, high, run by Abundant AI (2.5) Capabilities
12 Aug 2026 Grok 4.6 model card 31.9 SWE-Marathon v1.1, resolution rate, high, Grok Build harness, run by Abundant AI (2.5) Capabilities
27 Jul 2026 Kimi K3 technical report 42 SWE-Marathon, H20-calibrated branch of the official tasks as of 2026-07-09 (Table 2) Capabilities
14 Jul 2026 Grok 4.5 model card 29 SWE-Marathon, full task set, resolution rate, high (2.6) Capabilities

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 xAI Moonshot AI Z.ai StepFun DeepSeek Meta
SWE-Marathon v1.1 9 leaders
SWE-Marathon 5 leaders
SWE-Marathon v1.1 4 leaders

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