Coding leaderboard

Best LLMs for coding

This leaderboard weights the benchmarks that actually predict real developer productivity: SWE-bench Verified (real GitHub bugs), Aider Polyglot (multi-language edits), Terminal-Bench (end-to-end shell agents), and LiveBench (contamination-resistant reasoning). Scores update every refresh cycle.

Composite weightingHow this is calculated →

Category leader

#01Anthropic

Anthropic: Claude Fable 5.1.

Claude Fable 5.1 improves on Claude Fable 5 across the board, with the biggest gains in agentic coding, long-running agentic workflows, and knowledge work: long code refactors, front-end and visual...

Composite score
84.7
/ 100

+4.5 vs #2

Ranking

N=43
#ModelCompositeSWE-benchAider PolyglotTerminal-BenchLiveBenchAA Index
0184.786.888.174.290.877
0280.281.284.767.189.475
0380.180.683.869.488.975
0479.879.885.268.687.973
0579.380.184.167.887.372
06
Claude Opus 5Anthropic
79.380.384.468.286.170
0778.078.483.465.786.871
0877.878.182.966.286.571
0977.577.982.765.486.370
1076.976.384.163.183.381
1175.776.480.263.885.168
1275.474.181.961.684.182
1374.374.180.461.783.867
1473.574.780.862.676.862
1573.173.777.861.080.771
1673.072.878.760.982.665
1772.471.878.657.981.278
1872.372.479.260.180.062
1972.371.977.960.482.264
2072.272.982.258.377.458
2172.070.877.861.483.659
2271.972.879.860.978.849
2371.770.977.857.280.778
2471.571.178.359.280.363
2570.970.877.158.180.863
2670.870.477.457.980.563
2770.469.876.858.779.762
2870.470.081.057.075.060
2970.268.477.458.781.957
3070.069.777.256.280.162
3170.070.178.157.176.959
3269.969.576.657.679.161
3369.970.979.952.276.464
3469.368.976.156.878.760
3568.868.375.856.178.360
3668.267.475.455.777.859
3766.263.577.452.473.562
3865.264.775.450.872.453
3965.065.171.953.271.359
4063.364.365.452.873.856
4162.862.170.247.273.860
4258.054.771.538.171.453
4355.553.070.038.062.052

How to read the coding leaderboard

Coding ability is the hardest capability to summarise in one number, because 'writing code' is really four separate skills: producing a correct patch, applying that patch to an existing file without mangling it, navigating an unfamiliar repository, and recovering when a test fails. Each of the benchmarks below measures a different one, which is why we weight rather than pick.

SWE-bench Verified carries the most weight because its pass criterion cannot be argued with: the model's patch either makes the project's own hidden tests go green or it does not. It is the closest public proxy for 'can this model close a real ticket'. Its limits are worth knowing — it is Python-only, drawn from a narrow set of large repositories, and results shift by ten points or more depending on the agent harness wrapped around the model. Compare scores from the same harness or not at all.

Aider Polyglot fills the language gap and, more importantly, measures edit-format compliance across C++, Go, Java, JavaScript, Python and Rust. A model that reasons brilliantly but emits malformed diffs will feel broken inside an IDE regardless of its SWE-bench number, and this is the benchmark that exposes that failure. Terminal-Bench then adds the long-horizon dimension: planning, running commands, reading stderr and course-correcting without a human in the loop. LiveBench acts as the contamination-resistant control, since its questions rotate and cannot have been memorised.

A practical way to use the table: shortlist the top three, then check price and throughput before committing. Coding workloads are token-hungry, and a model two points behind at a third of the cost is usually the better production choice. Reasoning models also emit large volumes of hidden thinking tokens, so measure cost per merged pull request rather than cost per token — the ordering often changes when you do.

Finally, treat gaps under roughly three points as ties. These evaluations have a few hundred items each, which puts several points inside the noise band. If two models are that close, the deciding factors should be latency, context window, tool-calling reliability and how they behave on your own repository — not the leaderboard.

More on how these numbers are produced in the methodology and what each evaluation measures in the benchmark guide. Spotted a score that disagrees with its source? Tell us.

Frequently asked

What is the best LLM for coding right now?
The current #1 on this coding-weighted composite is shown at the top of the table. It aggregates SWE-bench Verified (35%), Aider Polyglot (25%), Terminal-Bench (20%), LiveBench (15%) and AA Index (5%).
Why isn't a benchmark like HumanEval used?
HumanEval is saturated and heavily contaminated in modern training data, so it no longer discriminates between frontier models. SWE-bench Verified and Aider Polyglot are today's stronger signals.