SWE-Together
Coding agents work through 109 repository tasks rebuilt from real multi-turn sessions between users and coding agents. A simulated user replays the original user's goals and gives feedback when the agent needs it. Scores count tasks solved and the number of corrections the user had to make.
Tasks come from 11,260 recorded sessions. The makers' leaderboard runs 23 models in one harness (opencode) with two trials each. Five entries are paper results that were not rerun. A judge score of 0.85 or more counts as a solve. About 86 GitHub stars.
- Made by
- Meta
- Released
- June 2026
- Kind
- Fixing real repositories
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-6 Astra #3 on the capability index
- Last model added
- September 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Most coding-agent benchmarks are static: an agent receives a complete task description up front and is judged only by its final code. Real coding assistance is interactive, with users clarifying goals, adding constraints, and correcting mistakes over multiple turns. We introduce SWE-Together, a multi-turn benchmark reconstructed from real user-agent coding sessions. To make real interactions verifiable, we curate 109 repository-level tasks from 11,260 recorded sessions, selecting sessions with recoverable repository states, clear user goals, and observable outcomes. To replay these interactions across agents, we build a reactive LLM-based user simulator that preserves the original users' intents and provides feedback when the coding agent's progress requires it. To evaluate agents as collaborators, we measure both final repository correctness and the number of corrective feedback turns required during the interaction. Experiments with frontier coding agents show that stronger agents generally achieve higher final success rates while requiring fewer interventions, suggesting an improved user experience.
Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 69.3%
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 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.
- 69.3 Claude Fable 5.1
- 68.8 Claude Fable 5
- 68.8 Claude Opus 5.5
- 65.1 Grok 4.7
- 64.2
Gemini 3.8 Flash
- 63.8 Kimi K3
- 63.8 Claude Opus 5
- 62.4 Claude Opus 4.6
- 62.4
Muse Spark 1.3
- 62.4 Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 61.5 Claude Opus 4.7
- 61.5 Claude Opus 4.8
- 60.6 Grok 4.6
- 60.6 GPT-6 Astra
- 60.6 GPT-6 Sol
- 59.6 GPT-6 Luna
- 58.3 GPT-6.1 Sol
- 58.0 GPT-5.5
- 57.8 GPT-5.6 Sol
- 55.0 GLM-5.2
- 52.0 GLM-5.1
- 48.0
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 39.0 minimax-2.7
- 1 Claude Fable 5.1 69.3%
- 2 Claude Fable 5 68.8%
- 3 Claude Opus 5.5 68.8%
- 4 Grok 4.7 65.1%
- 5
Gemini 3.8 Flash 64.2%
- 6 Kimi K3 63.8%
- 7 Claude Opus 5 63.8%
- 8 Claude Opus 4.6 62.4%
- 9
Muse Spark 1.3 62.4%
- 10 Claude Sonnet 5.5 62.4%
- 11 Claude Opus 4.7 61.5%
- 12 Claude Opus 4.8 61.5%
- 13 Grok 4.6 60.6%
- 14 GPT-6 Astra 60.6%
- 15 GPT-6 Sol 60.6%
- 16 GPT-6 Luna 59.6%
- 17 GPT-6.1 Sol 58.3%
- 18 GPT-5.5 58%
- 19 GPT-5.6 Sol 57.8%
- 20 GLM-5.2 55%
- 21 GLM-5.1 52%
- 22
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 48%
- 23 minimax-2.7 39%
Source: Official SWE-Together leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Fable 5.1 | 69.3% | opencode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | Claude Fable 5 | 68.8% | opencode | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 68.8% | opencode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Grok 4.7 | 65.1% | opencode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 64.2% | opencode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Kimi K3 | 63.8% | opencode | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | Claude Opus 5 | 63.8% | opencode | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 62.4% | opencode | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | | 62.4% | opencode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 62.4% | opencode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 61.5% | opencode | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 61.5% | opencode | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | Grok 4.6 | 60.6% | opencode | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | GPT-6 Astra | 60.6% | opencode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | GPT-6 Sol | 60.6% | opencode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | GPT-6 Luna | 59.6% | opencode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 17 | GPT-6.1 Sol | 58.3% | opencode | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | GPT-5.5 | 58% | opencode | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 57.8% | opencode | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | GLM-5.2 | 55% | opencode | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | GLM-5.1 | 52% | opencode | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 22 | | 48% | opencode | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | minimax-2.7 | 39% | opencode | Official leaderboard |
The best score, 69.3%, costs $8.19 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.
Source: Official SWE-Together leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Fable 5.1 | opencode | 69.3% | $8.19 | 57,800 | |
| Claude Fable 5 | opencode | 68.8% | $18 | 67,700 | |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | opencode | 68.8% | $5.23 | 74,300 | |
| Grok 4.7 | opencode | 65.1% | $13 | 76,300 | |
| | opencode | 64.2% | $4.22 | 92,300 | |
| Kimi K3 | opencode | 63.8% | $5.79 | 40,100 | |
| Claude Opus 5 | opencode | 63.8% | $14 | 92,700 | |
| Claude Opus 4.6 | opencode | 62.4% | $8.34 | 44,500 | |
| | opencode | 62.4% | $3.19 | 102,300 | |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | opencode | 62.4% | $1.95 | 45,400 | |
| Claude Opus 4.7 | opencode | 61.5% | $12 | 74,300 | |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | opencode | 61.5% | $9.28 | 71,800 | |
| Grok 4.6 | opencode | 60.6% | $6.24 | 37,700 | |
| GPT-6 Astra | opencode | 60.6% | $11 | 31,500 | |
| GPT-6 Sol | opencode | 60.6% | $3.36 | 31,100 | |
| GPT-6 Luna | opencode | 59.6% | $0.25 | 59,900 | |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | opencode | 58.3% | $2.13 | 36,800 | |
| GPT-5.5 | opencode | 58% | 29,900 | ||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | opencode | 57.8% | $5.09 | 27,800 | |
| GLM-5.2 | opencode | 55% | 41,700 | ||
| GLM-5.1 | opencode | 52% | 41,600 | ||
| | opencode | 48% | 49,800 |
3 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in June 2026
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official SWE-Together leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official SWE-Together leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 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%
- 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%
- SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Fable 5.2 96.6%
- 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