SWE-1.7 Reach Near GPT 5.5 and Opus Intelligence

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

Okay, let's give software engineers a break for a bit and focus on obsoleting other high-linguistic context occupations.

While I am skeptical of the results here, I am very excited for this new trend of making models faster. Running capable models at 1k TPS is more valuable for me than running better models at 30 TPS. I can only imagine the trend continues to move from "let's only make models smarter" to just incremental intelligence gains but with step improvements in speed.

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.

Would have been worth a consideration if it could have been used beyond it's own harness. Unfortunately, doesn't seem to be the case.

https://x.com/theodormarcu/status/2074896486047834380

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?

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...

Unrelated: what's the point of "*equal contribution"? Why would someone specify this

Feels like they discovers that if you build your own benchmark, you can win it

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

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.

Heads up to anyone else curious, I installed the Devin CLI and SWE-1.7 is not currently available there.

I think showing the API prices for competitors that people don't really pay for that way is all that useful. I do like that it's provisioned by Cerebras though. I think I'd have leant towards focusing on the TPS.

These models are never as good, the benchmarks dont tell the full story

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.