Qodo CLI agent scores 71.2% on SWE-bench Verified
53 comments
·August 12, 2025gronky_
thinkingtoilet
This is classic Goodhart's law. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
ambicapter
It's really not that hard to not build a custom bench setup to game the benchmark instead of just using your product straight out of the box, though.
VikingCoder
Right, other than financial pressure. Which is, of course, immense.
null
jasonjmcghee
Right. Building a custom setup is blatant- that will wildly overfit.
But let's say a group uses it as a metric as part of CI and each new idea / feature they create runs against SWE bench. Maybe they have parameterized bits and pieces they adjust, maybe they have multiple candidates datasets for fine tuning, maybe they're choosing between checkpoints.
This will also end up overfitting - especially if done habitually. It might be a great metric and result in a more powerful overall model. Or it might not.
clutchdude
Also see the VW dieselgate and numerous other "gaming the system" examples.
kelipso
A specific setup for the benchmark is just plain cheating, not Goodhart’s law.
energy123
What are the typical context lengths in SWE-bench problems? Does it partly measure performance in the 64-128k context range?
whymauri
This is what the rows look like:
https://huggingface.co/datasets/princeton-nlp/SWE-bench_Veri...
Its up to your retrieval system/model to selectively hunt for relevant context. Here's a few critiques of the benchy:
dimitri-vs
IIRC the SWE bench dataset gives you the full repo snapshot + the issue text, the evaluation pipelines typically run some kind of retriever (eg. grep, BM25) to pick a subset of files to place in the model’s context. They provided context is usually limited up to ~50k tokens.
terminalshort
Is there something in this multi-agent approach that makes the setup more specific to just the test at hand and less general to real engineering tasks? If not, then this multi-agent system will just become what you get out of the box in a future product. Multiple attempts per problem (as long as there's no human intervention or selection between them) is a perfectly fine approach for agents because that's not an issue from the perspective of an engineer using the product. A single agent is already a multi-step usage of LLMs and it sounds like this is just another meta level of that.
eddd-ddde
I think multiple attempts are completely understandable and even expected? How is that defeating the purpose of the benchmark?
gronky_
It’s a pass@1 benchmark. When submitting you need to check a box that there was only 1 attempt per problem. See here for example: https://github.com/SWE-bench/experiments/pull/219
Building multiple attempts into your agent is stretching the rules, even if technically it’s acceptable
terminalshort
From my perspective as a potential user the number of attempts is the number of times I have to tell it what to do. If you have an agent that makes a single attempt and is 60% accurate vs another that makes 5 attempts and is 80% accurate, why would you care that each individual attempt of the 2nd model is less accurate than the first?
szundi
According to your experience with this model, is it just trained for the benchmark or these points are actually representing the performance?
null
Roritharr
Finally someone mentions Refact, I was in contact with the team, rooting for them really.
bluelightning2k
Just looked them up. Their pricing is around buying "coins" with no transparency as to what that gets. Hard pass
Roritharr
You realize that you can self-host their stuff? https://github.com/smallcloudai/refact
ai-christianson
One thing with SWE bench is making sure there's zero leakage of information into the LLM context.
I.e. the agent cannot even know which tests are failing.
It has to both fix the issue based just on the issue text and fix it in the specific way the unit test, which it cannot see, expects.
For this reason I find the benchmark a little disconnected from the reality of software engineering.
raylad
If it's really better than Claude Code while using Sonnet 4.0, then I'd pay a monthly fee for it, but only if I can use my Claude subscription the same way Claude Code does.
I do not want to pay API charges or be limited to a fixed number of "credits" per month.
khalic
We need some international body to start running these tests… I just can’t trust these numbers any longer. We need a platform for this, something at least we can get some peer reviews
redman25
That sounds like an interesting idea to me. It would at least resolve the problem of companies gaming the metric.
Another approach might be the LiveBench approach where new tests are released on a regular basis.
orangebread
I've been using Warp for the past few weeks and it's been incredibly impressive over other agentic coding services/platforms. Curious how Qodo stacks up.
lightbendover
When I tried warp I was convinced that was where the industry was going (agents as terminal replacement), but it felt a bit too heavy to me so I haven’t been using it lately. Still think all things will converge on terminal and browser replacement.
itamarcode
Unlike most SWE bench submissions, Qodo Command one uses the product directly.
I think that the next step is getting an official "checked" mark by the SWE bench team
whymauri
I feel like the bash only SWE Bench Verified (a.k.a model + mini-swe-agent) is the closest thing to measuring the inherent ability of the model vs. the scaffolding.
NitpickLawyer
There's swe-rebench, where they take "bugs/issues" by date, and you can drag a slider on their top scores to see issues solved after the model was released (obviously only truly working for open models).
esafak
If Qodo is reading: please compare your efficiency too. Run some tasks on various agents using the same models, and report the cost.
zuzuen_1
I would be more interested in Qodo's performance on the swe-bench-multilingual benchmark. Swe-bench-verified only includes bugs related to python breakages.
The best submission is swe-bench-multilingual is Claude 3.7 Sonnet which solves ~43% of the issues in the dataset.
afro88
If Qodo are reading this: please introduce a plan that isn't for teams or enterprise. A "pro" plan for individuals who want more than 250 credits per month.
zuzuen_1
Does anyone have a benchmark on the effectiveness of using embeddings for mapping bug reports to code files as opposed to extensive grepping as Qodo, Cursor and a number of tools I use do to localize faults?
mupuff1234
I'm curious how do these LLM wrapper companies think they'll survive long term - especially coding related wrappers.
I could understand focusing on a niche business use case, but coding is a main focus of the foundation models themselves.
M4R5H4LL
Labeling them as “wrappers” and “niche business” indicates a strong cognitive bias already. Value can be created on both sides of the equation.
OldGreenYodaGPT
Was using their bot for code review for last 2 years but just dropped it for BugBot
OldfieldFund
do we know anything about the size of the model? I can't find the answer.
khalic
it's sonnet behind the scene
I’ve been running a bunch of coding agents on benchmarks recently as part of consulting, and this is actually much more impressive than it seems at first glance.
71.2% puts it at 5th, which is 4 points below the leader (four points is a lot) and just over 1% lower than Anthropic’s own submission for Claude Sonnet 4 - the same model these guys are running.
But the top rated submissions aren’t running production products. They generally have extensive scaffolding or harnesses that were built *specifically for SWE bench*, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of the benchmark.
Take for example Refact which is at #2 with 74.4%, they built a 2k lines of code framework around their agent specifically for SWE bench (https://github.com/smallcloudai/refact-bench/). It’s pretty elaborate, orchestrating multiple agents, with a debug agent that kicks in if the main agent fails. The debug agent analyzes the failure and gives insights to the main agent which tries again, so it’s effectively multiple attempts per problem.
If the results can be reproduced “out-of-the-box” with their coding agent like they claim, it puts it up there as one of the top 2-3 CLI agents available right now.