Benchmarks · Coding & software engineering

SWE-bench Pro

also: SWE-Bench Pro

Can a model resolve a realistic, multi-file software engineering task in a codebase it could not have memorised — including private, commercial code rather than only well-known open-source repositories?

Scale AIReleased 19 September 2025Live

SWE-bench Pro is Scale AI’s answer to a problem the original SWE-bench had run into by 2025: frontier models were clearing more than 70% of the “Verified” subset, and it was no longer clear how much of that reflected genuine software-engineering skill versus the benchmark’s own tasks and fixes having leaked into training data. The successor scaled up and toughened the task pool — 1,865 problems across 41 repositories, averaging over a hundred lines of change across multiple files rather than the narrow single-function patches common in the original — and, crucially, kept a large slice of the tasks private, drawn from commercial codebases models were unlikely to have ever seen.

The effect was immediate: models that scored above 70% on SWE-bench Verified managed only around 23% on SWE-bench Pro at launch, a gap Scale read as evidence of overfitting to a familiar, narrow task distribution. Scores climbed through the following year as labs targeted the new benchmark directly — OpenAI’s Codex-tuned models moved from the mid-50s toward 57%, and Anthropic reported Claude Opus 4.7 reaching 64.3% — and OpenAI formally recommended SWE-bench Pro as a successor when it retired Verified from its own release reporting in February 2026.

As with several benchmarks in this space, a gap has opened between what labs report from their own runs and what Scale’s own public leaderboard shows when it reruns submissions independently — the leaderboard has generally sat several points below vendor self-reported figures, a reminder that “SWE-bench Pro score” can mean somewhat different things depending on who ran the test.

The set

1,865 tasks — 731 public, 858 held out, and 276 drawn from private commercial codebases — across 41 repositories, with problems averaging 107 lines of code spanning several files, deliberately more complex than SWE-bench Verified's largely single-function fixes. Held-out and private splits exist specifically so a reported score can't simply reflect a leaked answer key.

Example

From a NodeBB/NodeBB task, verbatim: 'The Admin Control Panel (ACP) does not accurately reflect the email validation status of users... validation and confirmation processes rely on key expiration, which can prevent correct verification if the keys expire.' The model must patch the real codebase to fix this.huggingface.co

Where it stands

Built explicitly to succeed SWE-bench Verified once that benchmark saturated; OpenAI named it among Verified's recommended replacements when it retired Verified from its own reporting in February 2026. Scale's own public leaderboard — which reruns submissions rather than accepting vendor-reported numbers — has consistently shown lower scores than labs report in their own release announcements.

How the top score changed hands

  1. September 2025GPT-5 / Claude Opus 4.1~23%Both models scored above 70% on SWE-bench Verified; Scale presented the drop as evidence Verified's saturation reflected overfitting rather than genuine capability.
  2. December 2025GPT-5.2-Codex56.4%OpenAI's own figure, described by the company as 'unmatched' at the time.
  3. April 2026Claude Opus 4.764.3%Anthropic's own figure, up from 53.4% for Opus 4.6; independent tracking cited put it ahead of GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro on this measure.

Current best: Muse Spark 1.1 (Meta) — 61.5% ± 3.1 Top of Scale's own public SWE-bench Pro leaderboard, which independently reruns submissions; several vendor self-reported figures (e.g. Claude Opus 4.7's 64.3%) are higher but were not run on this leaderboard.

In the timeline · 11 entries

More coding & software engineering benchmarks