HumanEval+
HumanEval+ extends HumanEval with an average of 764 test cases per problem (vs 9.6 in original), greatly increasing evaluation rigor for edge case coverage.
Models ranked
6
tracked on this benchmark
Score band
95.1 – 79.9
best → lowest tracked
Snapshot trend
+3.62
Oct 8 → Oct 13 · 1 models
Leaderboard
Tracked models ranked by Pass@1 (higher is better).
Notes: Aleph Alpha first-party HF model card Aleph-Alpha/Kolibri-1 (FP8 release checkpoint), Evaluation > Post-training table; same value in launch blog/landing page. Harness: Aleph-Alpha-Research eval-framework (Harbor for TerminalBench/SWE-Bench), Kolibri at reasoning effort high, each model at its documented context window. BF16 repo card reports 92.8. Self-reported by the lab.
Notes: HumanEval+ pass@1; JetBrains self-reported on HF model-index.
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: Apr 15, 2026