Introducing Real-SWE 1.1

By Snagnik DasSiddhant PaliwalJanak Sunil

Benchmarking frontier AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases.

Leaderboard

  1. Rank 1
    GPT 6.1 Sol
    Resolution rate: 47.20%, 95% confidence interval 42.5% to 51.9%
  2. Rank 2
    Claude Fable 5.1
    Resolution rate: 45.60%, 95% confidence interval 39.5% to 51.7%
  3. Rank 3
    GPT 6 Astra
    Resolution rate: 44.80%, 95% confidence interval 41.3% to 48.3%
  4. Tied for rank 4
    Claude Opus 5.5
    Resolution rate: 42.40%, 95% confidence interval 36.5% to 48.3%
  5. Tied for rank 4
    Muse Wonder 1.0
    Resolution rate: 42.40%, 95% confidence interval 37.4% to 47.4%
  6. Rank 6
    Gemini 4 Argon
    Resolution rate: 39.20%, 95% confidence interval 32.6% to 45.8%
  7. Rank 7
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
    Resolution rate: 38.40%, 95% confidence interval 33.3% to 43.5%
  8. Rank 8
    Hy4 preview
    Resolution rate: 33.60%, 95% confidence interval 28.3% to 38.9%
  9. Rank 9
    GLM-5.3
    Resolution rate: 26.40%, 95% confidence interval 21.4% to 31.4%
  10. Rank 10
    Grok 4.7
    Resolution rate: 25.60%, 95% confidence interval 20.6% to 30.6%
  11. Rank 11
    Qwen3.8-Max prime
    Resolution rate: 24.00%, 95% confidence interval 18.5% to 29.5%
  12. Rank 12
    Kimi K3
    Resolution rate: 11.20%, 95% confidence interval 6.8% to 15.6%
  13. Rank 13
    GPT 6 Luna
    Resolution rate: 10.40%, 95% confidence interval 6.7% to 14.1%
  14. Rank 14
    Inkling
    Resolution rate: 8.00%, 95% confidence interval 5.1% to 10.9%
  15. Rank 15
    Seed 2.1 Turbo
    Resolution rate: 5.60%, 95% confidence interval 2.7% to 8.5%
  16. Rank 16
    Nemotron 3 Ultra
    Resolution rate: 4.80%, 95% confidence interval 2.1% to 7.5%
RankModelResolution rate
1GPT 6.1 Sol
47.20%, 95% confidence interval 42.5% to 51.9%
2Claude Fable 5.1
45.60%, 95% confidence interval 39.5% to 51.7%
3GPT 6 Astra
44.80%, 95% confidence interval 41.3% to 48.3%
Tied for 4Claude Opus 5.5
42.40%, 95% confidence interval 36.5% to 48.3%
Tied for 4Muse Wonder 1.0
42.40%, 95% confidence interval 37.4% to 47.4%
6Gemini 4 Argon
39.20%, 95% confidence interval 32.6% to 45.8%
7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
38.40%, 95% confidence interval 33.3% to 43.5%
8Hy4 preview
33.60%, 95% confidence interval 28.3% to 38.9%
9GLM-5.3
26.40%, 95% confidence interval 21.4% to 31.4%
10Grok 4.7
25.60%, 95% confidence interval 20.6% to 30.6%
11Qwen3.8-Max prime
24.00%, 95% confidence interval 18.5% to 29.5%
12Kimi K3
11.20%, 95% confidence interval 6.8% to 15.6%
13GPT 6 Luna
10.40%, 95% confidence interval 6.7% to 14.1%
14Inkling
8.00%, 95% confidence interval 5.1% to 10.9%
15Seed 2.1 Turbo
5.60%, 95% confidence interval 2.7% to 8.5%
16Nemotron 3 Ultra
4.80%, 95% confidence interval 2.1% to 7.5%
Resolution rate is equivalent to pass@1, averaged over five independent runs per task. 95% confidence intervals are shown.All runs use the highest effort possible for each model with its harness.

Resolution rate by estimated cost per rollout

Models in leaderboard order, with estimated cost per rollout
ModelResolution rateEstimated cost per rollout
1GPT 6.1 Sol47.20%$0.79
2Fable 5.145.60%$14.24
3GPT 6 Astra44.80%$3.78
4Opus 5.542.40%$13.95
5Muse Wonder 1.042.40%$3.76
6Gemini 4 Argon39.20%$4.66
7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash38.40%$0.19
8Hy4 preview33.60%$1.13
9GLM-5.326.40%$3.35
10Grok 4.725.60%$2.66
11Qwen3.8-Max prime24.00%$7.06
12Kimi K311.20%$2.31
13GPT 6 Luna10.40%$0.08
14Inkling8.00%$5.13
15Seed 2.1 Turbo5.60%$3.03
16Nemotron 3 Ultra4.80%$1.39
The dotted line connects the best observed trade-offs, not intermediate evaluations.

Introduction

Today we are releasing Real-SWE 1.1, a benchmark that evaluates frontier AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases. Each task comes from a private production codebase that we licensed from a real-world company. These are problems their engineers work on, with all the context and complexity that comes with an existing product. This release expands the benchmark to 25 tasks across TypeScript, Go, Python, Ruby and Java codebases and compares 16 models.

  • Private codebases. Agents must navigate proprietary systems whose code and solutions aren’t available on the public internet.
  • Work with business consequences. Getting billing right, calculating taxes, migrating customers. Changes that affect how a business runs, often across multiple services.
  • Company-specific complexity. Every company has its own rules and ways of writing code. Agents have to understand those conventions and make changes that work with what’s already there.

Can a coding agent actually do the work of a software engineer in the real world?

Expert-generated or synthetic tasks can be well designed, but they aren’t the verbatim, actual tasks that engineers in real companies need to do. Our tasks differ on two axes: the underlying coding artifact and specificity of the instruction. Both add complexities that challenge today’s frontier models.

We use native harnesses to reflect how enterprise engineers work in practice, evaluating model-and-harness combinations rather than models in isolation.

Real company tasks require company-specific context

Correct billing depends on business rules and external services

Fix invoice billing so each business charges the right tax and exempt customers aren't taxed.

View instruction

Billing reopens on Monday and every invoice this service issues is coming out untaxed. Each business on the platform settles its tax a different way: some maintain a rate themselves, some want each invoice priced against the buyer's destination by our tax authority provider, and some collect nothing at all, while a customer we hold an exemption for is charged nothing whichever way its business is configured. Pricing a destination means going to the authority with both addresses, the priced lines and the product category that business sells under, on the sandbox or the production authority according to the account the business is on; an address the authority refuses must be reported without stopping the invoice. The rate, the tax and the gross belong on the issued invoice, and once an invoice is settled the sale is filed back to the authority under that invoice's number so the returns reconcile. Invoices between European parties show both sides' VAT registrations. The authority and ledger are available at TAX_JAR_URL, PROD_TAX_JAR_URL and INFLUX_URL.

Services in the sandbox
  • TaxJar sandbox
  • TaxJar production
  • InfluxDB ledger
  • NestJS service
  • TypeScript

Agents work across code, infrastructure, and business tools

Tools and services across Real-SWE task environments. Each task exposes only the services its workflow needs.

  • TypeScript
  • Node.js
  • Python
  • Go
  • Ruby
  • Java
  • NestJS
  • Next.js
  • React
  • Django
  • Flask
  • Rails
  • Spring Boot
  • PostgreSQL
  • SQLite
  • Redis
  • Gel
  • InfluxDB
  • Docker
  • Kubernetes
  • AWS emulator
  • Firestore emulator
  • Supabase stand-in
  • Linear MCP
  • TaxJar
  • Stripe

Codebase Selection

We selected codebases through a rigorous screening process, focusing on real companies with substantial usage, strong engineering teams, and demanding production workloads. The tasks come from these codebases, including:

  • A Luma/Partiful competitor with 200K+ users and a top 100 App Store ranking
  • A consumer fintech platform processing 100K+ bank statements
  • Enterprise AI sales platforms supporting complex business workflows

We prioritize code written to meet an actual user or business need over code written solely to create a benchmark task. Production engineering requires understanding existing architecture, preserving behavior that users rely on, and making changes within real operational constraints.

Brief instructions can require changes across many files

Our tasks describe the change needed, leaving agents to discover implementation details in the codebase and surrounding tools. Any behavior required by the verifier must be stated or reasonably discoverable. This leads to our prompts being slightly underspecified, shorter than DeepSWE and Terminal Bench, but specific enough to not omit instructions.

The work is cross-functional and complex: a single change can span multiple parts of the application. Agents must understand existing business logic and company coding patterns while keeping the surrounding system working.

Prompt length · median

A typical Real-SWE instruction is 1,208 characters, shorter than DeepSWE's and Terminal-Bench 3's but longer than FrontierCode's and FrontierSWE v2's.

  • Real-SWE1,208 chars
  • FrontierCode982 chars
  • DeepSWE1,975 chars
  • Terminal-Bench 31,584 chars
  • FrontierSWE v2992 chars
Files edited by the reference solution · Real-SWE mean

On average, a Real-SWE reference solution edits 10.2 files.

  • Real-SWE10.2
  • FrontierCode6
  • DeepSWE6
Real-SWE's files edited, which is the mean over its 25 tasks. FrontierCode and DeepSWE use Cognition's published comparison; FrontierCode's figure is its task description alone, without codebase guidelines. We measured instruction files from Terminal-Bench 3's 74 tasks, FrontierSWE v2's 34 tasks, and Real-SWE's 25 repository-backed tasks. Character counts are rounded to the nearest whole character. No comparable files-edited figure is included for Terminal-Bench 3 or FrontierSWE v2.

Every task is inspired or lifted verbatim from a private, real-world codebase. We find these types of tasks super interesting for three reasons:

  1. Tasks on private codebases are natively out of distribution. These types of coding tasks are not available anywhere on the internet and are unlikely to have ever been trained on by any other ai model. 99% of tokens in real-world enterprises are hidden away from the frontier models.
  2. These tasks are economically viable work. Each task here has a direct relationship to spend and was assigned to an engineer earning a salary. Most benchmarks test interesting, experimental capabilities that are often unlikely to be widespread in the real-world.
  3. Company-specific engineering patterns matter. Does AI code match the bar of a real-world enterprise? Our results show us that we're far from that reality. Many enterprises care about code standards and patterns. We've found that today's models are weaker at understanding company coding patterns and frequently miss requirements or don't verify their assumptions.

Analysis

Here's an analysis of all the tasks from our benchmark. If you're interested in a sample of the tasks, request access here.

Unverified assumptions are the most common failure

Failures are grouped by observed submission behavior using the same taxonomy across models, following DeepSWE.

GPT 6.1 Sol
Fable 5.1
GPT 6 Astra
Opus 5.5
Muse Wonder 1.0
Gemini 4 Argon
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Hy4 preview
GLM-5.3
Grok 4.7
Qwen3.8-Max prime
Kimi K3
GPT 6 Luna
Inkling
Seed 2.1 Turbo
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Unverified assumptionMissed requirementIntegration errorMisunderstood taskWrong logicRegressionWrong file

Different models fail in different ways

Percentages are out of each model's failed runs, not all runs.

Share of each model's failed runs in each failure mode
ModelUnverified assumptionMissed requirementIntegration errorMisunderstood taskWrong logicRegressionWrong file
All models33.4%29.4%15.7%15.2%2.7%2.6%1.0%
GPT 6.1 Sol53.0%1.5%22.7%13.6%0%9.1%0%
Fable 5.122.1%29.4%27.9%20.6%0%0%0%
GPT 6 Astra55.1%0%24.6%13.0%0%7.2%0%
Opus 5.533.3%8.3%22.2%29.2%1.4%4.2%1.4%
Muse Wonder 1.012.5%55.6%16.7%13.9%1.4%0%0%
Gemini 4 Argon13.2%13.2%5.3%50.0%14.5%3.9%0%
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash28.6%41.6%5.2%16.9%1.3%6.5%0%
Hy4 preview10.8%39.8%31.3%10.8%1.2%1.2%4.8%
GLM-5.322.8%32.6%19.6%18.5%5.4%0%1.1%
Grok 4.736.6%34.4%12.9%12.9%2.2%0%1.1%
Qwen3.8-Max prime40.0%26.3%15.8%17.9%0%0%0%
Kimi K340.5%22.5%13.5%14.4%3.6%3.6%1.8%
GPT 6 Luna41.1%17.9%21.4%15.2%0%3.6%0.9%
Inkling33.9%44.3%10.4%3.5%6.1%1.7%0%
Seed 2.1 Turbo37.3%43.2%9.3%6.8%1.7%0.8%0.8%
Nemotron 3 Ultra43.7%39.5%5.0%3.4%3.4%2.5%2.5%
Unverified assumption
Builds on a guess about the system instead of checking it in the workspace.
Missed requirement
Leaves out behavior the instruction requires.
Integration error
Right idea, wired into the surrounding system incorrectly.
Misunderstood task
Misreads the requested behavior, including how the stated requirements and rules fit together.
Wrong logic
Right requirement and inputs, wrong calculation or transformation.
Regression
Breaks existing behavior while making the change.
Wrong file
Puts the change in a different file or layer from the one the graded behavior runs through, such as a duplicate or unused path.

Efficiency & the Frontier

Estimated rollout costs range from $0.08 to $14.24

RankModelEstimated cost (USD)
1GPT 6 Luna$0.08
2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash$0.19
3GPT 6.1 Sol$0.79
4Hy4 preview$1.13
5Nemotron 3 Ultra$1.39
6Kimi K3$2.31
7Grok 4.7$2.66
8Seed 2.1 Turbo$3.03
9GLM-5.3$3.35
10Muse Wonder 1.0$3.76
11GPT 6 Astra$3.78
12Gemini 4 Argon$4.66
13Inkling$5.13
14Qwen3.8-Max prime$7.06
15Claude Opus 5.5$13.95
16Claude Fable 5.1$14.24

Effort per rollout, by task

mean per rollout, by task

Swipe the chart to see all tasks.

Select a model to hide or show its line.

Use the left and right arrow keys, Home and End to move between this model’s tasks. Escape closes the details.

View task values
  • GPT 6.1 Sol15k
  • Fable 5.163k
  • GPT 6 Astra11k
  • Opus 5.585k
  • Muse Wonder 1.026k
  • Gemini 4 Argon64k
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash48k
  • Hy4 preview48k
  • GLM-5.3185k
  • Grok 4.723k
  • Qwen3.8-Max prime36k
  • Kimi K316k
  • GPT 6 Luna25k
  • Inkling21k
  • Seed 2.1 Turbo30k
  • Nemotron 3 Ultra33k
Output tokens per rollout by task
ModelTask 1Task 2Task 3Task 4Task 5Task 6Task 7Task 8Task 9Task 10Task 11Task 12Task 13Task 14Task 15Task 16Task 17Task 18Task 19Task 20Task 21Task 22Task 23Task 24Task 25
GPT 6.1 Sol15k23k34k31k53k23k33k30k17k27k20k45k47k29k54k31k31k29k27k32k36k44k32k27k29k
Fable 5.163k93k112k119k151k107k140k128k80k104k61k132k133k84k212k85k72k99k97k93k99k131k88k84k63k
GPT 6 Astra11k17k26k23k36k17k19k21k13k22k17k32k38k24k42k25k22k23k25k23k25k36k21k18k17k
Opus 5.585k186k318k333k728k273k553k240k139k390k143k543k282k325k428k195k172k190k252k179k414k348k206k247k129k
Muse Wonder 1.026k25k46k38k56k41k46k46k20k41k26k42k49k34k92k31k26k56k42k44k36k41k41k36k30k
Gemini 4 Argon64k75k123k207k261k142k188k142k37k89k56k193k147k85k135k135k65k144k116k118k135k125k144k372k101k
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash48k71k82k102k133k93k121k79k48k110k104k116k118k94k223k105k54k170k110k116k119k116k119k101k70k
Hy4 preview48k85k105k171k140k74k84k70k49k80k96k99k113k79k256k68k61k105k70k87k56k104k57k61k77k
GLM-5.3185k358k395k415k656k263k333k278k206k663k319k695k318k561k278k485k405k589k245k804k218k366k297k708k343k
Grok 4.723k29k22k36k57k33k33k41k17k50k30k43k73k61k91k37k18k40k37k37k23k39k46k45k31k
Qwen3.8-Max prime36k59k63k54k98k77k70k93k38k73k45k73k105k75k254k57k48k116k105k90k61k85k88k61k61k
Kimi K316k20k28k29k32k29k18k35k14k35k16k18k40k27k120k26k10k39k36k39k15k22k24k16k23k
GPT 6 Luna25k20k40k32k67k40k52k48k22k52k23k75k78k23k119k32k17k59k23k61k37k66k51k41k35k
Inkling21k15k21k24k22k28k25k30k18k32k28k28k29k25k28k30k22k34k22k28k22k21k19k27k23k
Seed 2.1 Turbo30k19k25k23k38k27k17k30k21k25k25k23k40k26k77k20k14k69k31k30k23k34k25k31k28k
Nemotron 3 Ultra33k26k40k22k39k38k38k43k22k33k20k31k86k46k68k32k29k52k32k32k25k43k25k36k30k

Evaluation Setup

Each agent was run in an isolated sandbox. All tasks are in Harbor format, and verifiers are injected at grading time. The verifiers are inspired by existing test suites in the codebase or use those tests verbatim.

Harness for each model

ModelHarness
GPT 6.1 SolCodex CLI
Claude Fable 5.1Claude Code
GPT 6 AstraCodex CLI
Claude Opus 5.5Claude Code
Muse Wonder 1.0Muse Code
Gemini 4 ArgonAntigravity CLI
DeepSeek V4.1 Flashmini-swe-agent
Hy4 previewmini-swe-agent
GLM-5.3Claude Code
Grok 4.7Grok Build
Qwen3.8-Max primeQwen Code
Kimi K3Kimi Code
GPT 6 LunaCodex CLI
Inklingmini-swe-agent
Seed 2.1 Turbomini-swe-agent
Nemotron 3 Ultramini-swe-agent