Cursor · CursorBench

CursorBench 4.0

We evaluate agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks from real Cursor sessions. Higher scores are better.

More about CursorBench
A scatter and line chart comparing Fable 5.1, Opus 5.5, Opus 5, Grok 4.7, Grok 4.6, GPT-5.6 Sol, GPT-5.6 Terra, GPT-5.6 Luna, Sonnet 5.5, Sonnet 5, Haiku 5.5, Gemini 4 Argon, Gemini 3.8 Flash, Muse Wonder, Muse Spark 1.3, GLM 5.3, GLM 5.3 Flash, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, and Composer 2.5 scores against average cost per task.60%CursorBench 4.0 score55%50%45%40%35%30%25%20%$18$15$12$9$6$3$0Average cost per taskGemini 4 ArgonOpus 5.5Fable 5.1Sonnet 5.5Muse WonderHaiku 5.5GPT-5.6 SolGrok 4.7

Changelog

Reporting

  • Updated Sonnet 5.5 results to account for adjusted pricing.

Tasks

  • CursorBench 4.0
    • Introduced new long-horizon problems focused on edit, refactor, investigation, intent understanding, managing jobs, and design adherence.

Reporting

  • Updated Sonnet 5 results to account for adjusted pricing.

Reporting

  • Updated GPT-5.6 Terra and Luna results to account for adjusted pricing.

Reporting

  • Updated GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna results to account for cache write costs.

Tasks

  • CursorBench 3.2
    • Introduced instruction following and advanced tool use problems.

Tasks

  • CursorBench 3.1
    • Introduced problems focused on codebase understanding, bugfinding, planning, and code review.
    • Improved grading criteria for some edit tasks.

Tasks

  • CursorBench 3.0
    • Initial set of tasks focused on edit, refactor, and bugfix problems.

Avg cost / task is computed by applying each model's published per-million-token pricing (input, cache read, cache write, and output) to the tokens it used on each task. Results are subject to variance; small differences in scores may not be statistically meaningful.