activeCodingAgents

FrontierSWE v2

Metric: Mean score (higher is better)Introduced: 2026

Proximal's FrontierSWE v2 is a 34-task ultra-long-horizon engineering and research benchmark (system implementation, performance optimization, scientific computing, AI research, and visual reasoning) with a 20-hour budget per trial. The standard protocol runs each model at max reasoning effort in Proximal's agent harness and reports the mean across five trials per task.

Models ranked

1

tracked on this benchmark

Score band

69.9 – 69.9

best → lowest tracked

Snapshot trend

—

need ≥2 snapshots

Leaderboard

Tracked models ranked by Mean score (higher is better).

Compare candidates
#Model variant and provenanceScore
1

Configuration: claude-fable-5-2 (max reasoning, Proximal harness, mean of 5 trials)

Version: FrontierSWE v2Harness: Proximal agent harnessEvaluator: AnthropicObserved: Nov 9, 2026Confidence: self-reportedSource

Notes: Anthropic self-reported (lab-published). System card + launch table, retrieved 2026-11-09. Does not move /best rankings (self-reported / raon rule). System card §8.7 and launch table: 69.9%. Proximal FrontierSWE v2, 34 ultra-long-horizon tasks, 20-hour budget, max reasoning effort in Proximal's own agent harness, mean of five trials per task. Card says Fable 5.2 was first among the models Proximal evaluated. Owner site https://www.frontierswe.com/blog/v2 was captured today but did not list a Fable 5.2 score in the static HTML, so this row stays lab-published (evaluator Anthropic citing Proximal's eval) rather than a scraped owner-board restamp.

69.9

How to read this benchmark

This benchmark scores models where higher is better. Use scores for directional filtering and shortlisting, not universal quality ranking; then validate pricing, context window, provider availability, and fit for your workload.

Trust this score when

  • There is a fresh timestamped snapshot (or multiple snapshots) for this benchmark.
  • The model list covers the same version family you can actually deploy today.
  • Top candidates overlap with your required routing and feature requirements.

Be cautious when

  • There is only one benchmark snapshot or the dataset appears stale.
  • The benchmark metric direction is opposite of your decision objective.
  • The score difference between options is narrow and likely within implementation variance.

Related benchmarks

Last reviewed: Nov 9, 2026

Resources