Benchmark checker Coding

Is CursorBench still meaningful?

Still useful Checked against the report, 5 November 2026

Yes, as one signal. Remember that a product company owns it.

Why still useful: The chapter lists it as active: models still spread out, with Claude Opus 5.5 (max) on top at 57.8%.^{[1][1] CursorBench Cursor Vendor}^{[2][2] Benchmark data bundle Epoch AI Primary}

What “Still useful” means

Known problems

A product company owns it.^{[1][1] CursorBench Cursor Vendor}
Anthropic headlines it; OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra table does not include it.^{[3][3] Introducing Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic Vendor}^{[4][4] GPT-6 Astra benchmarks explained Vellum Secondary}

What to look at instead

The report names no direct successor.

Where it appears in the report

Chapter 1, Benchmarks

Table 6. Coding and software-agent benchmarks, November 2026 in “Go deeper: Coding and software-agent benchmarks (14)”
Figure 14. OpenAI and Anthropic share only five headline benchmarks

Sources

Copied from the chapter source lists. Each number links back to the source in its chapter.

[1]
CursorBench, Cursor. It describes Cursor's coding benchmark. Vendor cursor.com Chapter 1, source 45
[2]
Benchmark data bundle, Epoch AI. Dated scores (5 Nov 2026) and ceilings for most benchmarks here. Primary epoch.ai Chapter 1, source 1
[3]
Introducing Claude Opus 5.5, Anthropic. It gives Anthropic's launch table and caveats. Vendor anthropic.com Chapter 1, source 12
[4]
GPT-6 Astra benchmarks explained, Vellum. It transcribes OpenAI's launch table and discusses its framing. Secondary vellum.ai Chapter 1, source 14