SWE-1.7 Reach Near GPT 5.5 and Opus Intelligence
62 points
1 hour ago
| 12 comments
| cognition.com
| HN
pants2
25 minutes ago
[-]
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

reply
taf2
28 minutes ago
[-]
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?
reply
mirekrusin
7 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
ryandvm
20 minutes ago
[-]
Okay, let's give software engineers a break for a bit and focus on obsoleting other high-linguistic context occupations.
reply
yousif_123123
32 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
UncleOxidant
19 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
yousif_123123
5 minutes ago
[-]
Its crazy that OpenAI and Anthropic themselves aren't doing that. No attempts at reducing inference cost for code as far as I know from them.
reply
gsibble
4 minutes ago
[-]
I use this model. It's pretty good but not Opus 4.8 or Fable levels obviously. I'm really hoping we get more models like it (and better) soon. I run it locally and it's great that way.
reply
harmonic18374
43 minutes ago
[-]
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...

reply
achandra03
1 minute ago
[-]
To be fair it does seem like most AI startups are now like this (particularly about constantly mentioning how hard they work and ignoring consumer markets).
reply
haritha1313
13 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
SubiculumCode
33 minutes ago
[-]
Link for this?
reply
jeffnv
21 minutes ago
[-]
reply
andy99
17 minutes ago
[-]
Is it just me or does all that* seem pretty tame by today’s standards? Not saying it’s right, but it barely raises eyebrows. Sounds like a pretty typical startup demo.

* Based on the first comment in the link that claims to summarize the video.

reply
oa335
24 minutes ago
[-]
> "A company whose first demo was completely fraudulent"

Could you expand on this?

reply
giancarlostoro
38 minutes ago
[-]
Would love to see these companies use benchmarks done by third parties.
reply
anthonypasq
27 minutes ago
[-]
they are right there? it shows swe-bench multilingual and terminal bench
reply
w4yai
36 minutes ago
[-]
What happened ?
reply
spate141
11 minutes ago
[-]
Feels like they discovers that if you build your own benchmark, you can win it
reply
londons_explore
4 minutes ago
[-]
Pretty sure most benchmarks are being gamed by people training on the test set deliberately or accidentally anyway.
reply
fallinditch
22 minutes ago
[-]
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.

reply
throwaw12
42 minutes ago
[-]
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

reply
spott
35 minutes ago
[-]
Is this open source? I can't find a link to download the weights.
reply
UncleOxidant
23 minutes ago
[-]
It's based on an open weight model (Kimi 2.7) so shouldn't it also be open weight?
reply
andy99
14 minutes ago
[-]
There is no obligation to do that. I think the landscape would be very different now if one of the big labs had released an earlier “frontier” model under copyleft that requires sharing fine tunes. I hope it still happens.
reply
hedgehog
31 minutes ago
[-]
Heads up to anyone else curious, I installed the Devin CLI and SWE-1.7 is not currently available there.
reply
nibbleyou
34 minutes ago
[-]
Unrelated: what's the point of "*equal contribution"? Why would someone specify this
reply
edot
32 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
nibbleyou
29 minutes ago
[-]
Interesting. Thank you
reply
achierius
37 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
llmslave
40 minutes ago
[-]
These models are never as good, the benchmarks dont tell the full story
reply
haritha1313
10 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
spate141
9 minutes ago
[-]
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.
reply
SubiculumCode
31 minutes ago
[-]
Funny, the cheerleading at HN for leading Chinese models, but a non Chinese lab (building on top of a Chinese model) gets dissed here.
reply
mirekrusin
3 minutes ago
[-]
It's simple: close weights = not welcome.
reply
sosodev
22 minutes ago
[-]
It's almost as if HN users aren't all the same.
reply
llmslave
29 minutes ago
[-]
all the open source models are a waste of time relative to the bleeding edge from openai/anthropic
reply
wongarsu
17 minutes ago
[-]
At work I wouldn't want to use anything else. Compared to my salary a Claude subscription (or two) is cheap

For hobby projects I've completely switched to DeepSeek v4 pro. I spend less than on a $10 Claude plan and am not subjected to quota limits (when I have time and motivation, the last thing I want is a 5 hour quota running out). And the difference in model performance is fine for those smaller projects, most of which will end up abandoned or in a state of "good enough" anyways

And for utility tasks, those 30b models are also great. I'm a big fan of gemma4

reply
llmslave
12 minutes ago
[-]
ive just got better things to do with my life than fuss with an inferior model. its like why hire a dumb employee over a smart one
reply
pixel_popping
23 minutes ago
[-]
Not true since a few months, genuinely try GLM 5.2 and Minimax M3, especially in adversarial/gating... as a general model, I can agree, but as a coding model, they are not bad, comparable to maybe Opus 4.5 in real usage which is quite impressive.
reply
llmslave
9 minutes ago
[-]
yeah but why waste your time on these models, just use the one that gets the better results
reply
nicoburns
1 minute ago
[-]
I actively prefer GLM-5.2 for some tasks. For simple tasks the results are just as good as e.g. Opus, and it produces results significantly faster.
reply
9183726518
3 minutes ago
[-]
Because you can get them from more trustworthy providers or with hardware encryption.
reply
somenameforme
4 minutes ago
[-]
I was going to respond until I saw your account name lol.
reply