SWE-1.7 Reach Near GPT 5.5 and Opus Intelligence

Join the discussion

• Hacker News
• These models are never as good, the benchmarks dont tell the full story
  by llmslave
• Funny, the cheerleading at HN for leading Chinese models, but a non Chinese lab (building on top of a Chinese model) gets dissed here.
  by SubiculumCode
• Benchmarks are just vibes with error bars... wake me up when it survives a week on a real codebase without hallucinating a package that doesn't exist.
  by spate141
• The reality is most people building their own models and providing that alongside SOTA ones don't really care about how great these models are. They just prove that 'hey we are smart enough to build our own models so you can trust us instead of going with a single provider like Claude via Claude Code', also a cheap alternative for cost sensitive/free users - at least this was the case for Windsurf, not sure if Devin Desktop still has that tier. They just need to hillclimb the benchmarks and show something reasonable enough there.
  by haritha1313
• I've always had mixed feelings about Cognition. Obviously they have some very, very smart people working there (I even know a few), and they do make real products. But at the same time, they've made suspicious marketing claims more than once and even been caught making outright fabricated ones; and while they certainly seem to have shaped up from that, I still find their claims to be in a sort of grey area where they seem to avoid unfavorable comparisons and lean on their own benchmarks. Certainly when I've tried their models they have not been nearly as useful as comparable versions of Claude, GLM, etc. -- though I haven't had a chance to try SWE-1.7 yet.
  by achierius
• Unrelated: what's the point of "*equal contribution"? Why would someone specify this
  by nibbleyou
• Because papers are often referred to by the first author’s name, and often the first author is the primary researcher and therefore deserves the extra credit. When two or more primary authors are equally involved, they’ll often do a random ordering but annotate this so that no one thinks one did more than the others.
  by edot
• Heads up to anyone else curious, I installed the Devin CLI and SWE-1.7 is not currently available there.
  by hedgehog
• Open source for the win!

  Imagine how far community might have pushed if 2 past versions of 'morally superior' Anthropic and 'completely Open AI' open sourced their models for the community to build on top of them

  by throwaw12
• Is this open source? I can't find a link to download the weights.
  by spott
• I'm looking forward to trying this out. I've been using SWE 1.6 quite a lot for grunt work alongside Opus for higher level planning and tricky stuff - a good combo.

  As a (former) Windsurf user I'm pretty happy with the progress of the Cognition/Devin ecosystem after they took over Windsurf, now known as Devin Desktop.

  by fallinditch
• Okay, let's give software engineers a break for a bit and focus on obsoleting other high-linguistic context occupations.
  by ryandvm
• A company whose first demo was completely fraudulent announces that its model beats GPT-5.5, on its own benchmark? I’m gonna wait a little before I trust this.

  This whole company seems to optimize for raising money and impressing VCs. Lying about their products, ignoring consumer market to target enterprise, bragging about how they work their employees like slaves, and writing these posts full of intimidating technical jargon...

  by harmonic18374
• Their product has far evolved beyond this (of course with the large amount of money being poured into it) and is now used by a lot of traditional companies (banks etc). Also the SWE models were originally built by Windsurf and this seems to be on top of that (after acquisition) although the original SWE-1 models weren't that groundbreaking.
  by haritha1313
• What happened ?
  by w4yai
• Would love to see these companies use benchmarks done by third parties.
  by giancarlostoro
• > "A company whose first demo was completely fraudulent"

  Could you expand on this?

  by oa335
• Link for this?
  by SubiculumCode
• I highly respect many people at cognition but yeah that's put a sour taste in my mouth.

  I want to work in the AI space on actual AI research, at any part of the stack. Even if I'm developing training infra - as long as people are advancing knowledge of what intelligence could be.

  But it seems like either it's big labs or grifters, that's it, and even the big labs, at least publicly, seem very grifty at times. Not like I have the technical chops probably, but still.

  by sigbottle
• To be fair it does seem like most AI startups are now like this (particularly when it comes to constantly mentioning how hard they work and ignoring consumer markets).
  by achandra03
• We need more models that optimize for coding and that can be cheaper than frontier models, like what SWE 1.7 and composer 2.5 are trying to do. I don't think there's an effort to make something GLM-5.2 level but focused only on coding.
  by yousif_123123
• Qwen was doing something like this with their coder models. But alas, they seem not to be releasing those anymore. Last one was Qwen3-coder-next.
  by UncleOxidant
• Feels like they discovers that if you build your own benchmark, you can win it
  by spate141
• Not finding anything about this while searching huggingface: https://huggingface.co/search/full-text?q=SWE-1.7 i assume this is another closed source model?
  by taf2
• Yes, and not only that but you can't even access it via API, you can only use it in Devin (formerly Windsurf).

  I'm an OpenCode user, but I'll fall back to Claude Code if I want to use Opus end to end for something, given my company has a subscription. But I'm not using yet another tool and subscription for a model that isn't even winning.

  by joecot
• Open weight models should have GPL-like license where it says if you train model on it, it needs to be open weight as well.
  by mirekrusin
• Kinda funny that their "cost-vs-performance" chart looks the same as the one for Composer 2.5[1], except that it includes Composer 2.5 at a completely different spot.

  What are the chances that CursorBench ranks Cursor's model highest, and Cognition's bench ranks Cognition's model highest? Both are to be RL'd from Kimi as a base model, BTW.

  I'd posit that it's not deliberate deception, but for both companies their training data and benchmarks come from the same dataset (Devin/Cursor interaction logs) so they naturally overfit.

  1. https://cursor.com/blog/composer-2-5

  by pants2