HumanEval tests whether AI models can generate correct Python functions from docstrings. Here's what it measures, why it's nearly saturated, and which benchmarks matter more in 2026.
Share This Report
Copy the link, post it, or save a PDF version.
HumanEval tests Python function generation from docstrings — pass the unit tests, score a point. Frontier models now score 91-95%, making it effectively saturated. It works as a minimum baseline check in 2026, but SWE-bench Verified and LiveCodeBench are the benchmarks that actually separate good coding models from great ones.
HumanEval is a benchmark of 164 hand-written Python programming problems. Each problem gives the model a function signature and docstring, and the model must generate a working function body. The generated code is tested against unit tests to check if it actually works.
It was created by OpenAI in 2021 and quickly became the standard way to measure whether an AI model can write code.
Each problem in HumanEval includes:
The model generates code, and that code gets executed. If it passes all the unit tests, it's counted as correct. The final score is the percentage of problems solved (pass@1 means one attempt per problem).
This is important: HumanEval measures functional correctness, not whether the code looks right. A syntactically perfect solution that returns wrong answers scores zero. An ugly solution that passes all tests scores 100%.
Look at the scores on our HumanEval leaderboard:
When most top models score above 90%, the benchmark stops being useful for distinguishing between them. A model scoring 93 vs 91 on HumanEval doesn't tell you much about which one will be better at your actual coding tasks.
The problems in HumanEval are mostly introductory to intermediate difficulty — string manipulation, basic algorithms, and simple data structures. Frontier models have gotten too good at this level.
HumanEval tests single-function generation. Real coding work involves:
These gaps are why SWE-bench Verified (real GitHub issue resolution) and LiveCodeBench (fresh competitive programming problems) are more informative in 2026.
HumanEval is still useful as a baseline filter. If a model scores below 80 on HumanEval, it's probably not competitive for coding tasks. But once you're above 85, you need to look at harder benchmarks to see real differences.
It's also useful for evaluating smaller or open-weight models where the gap between models is larger. A 15-point spread between open-weight models on HumanEval is meaningful in a way that a 2-point spread between frontier models isn't.
HumanEval was the right benchmark for 2022. In 2026, it's a checkbox — does the model clear the bar for basic code generation? For choosing between frontier models, check SWE-bench and LiveCodeBench.
→ See all coding models ranked · Full leaderboard
What is HumanEval? HumanEval is a benchmark of 164 Python programming problems created by OpenAI in 2021. Models get a function signature and docstring and must generate a working function body that passes unit tests. Score is percentage of problems solved on first attempt.
Is HumanEval still a good benchmark in 2026? It is nearly saturated — frontier models score 91-95% with only a 7-point gap between the top 10. Useful as a minimum baseline (below 80 means not competitive), but SWE-bench Verified and LiveCodeBench better separate frontier models.
What HumanEval score is good? Above 85 clears the bar for basic Python code generation. Above 90 is expected for frontier models. Score differences above 85 are not reliable indicators of real-world coding quality — always check SWE-bench alongside it.
What benchmarks replaced HumanEval? SWE-bench Verified for real-world bug-fixing, LiveCodeBench for contamination-resistant coding tasks, and Terminal-Bench 2.0 for agentic workflows. HumanEval is now a floor check.
What does HumanEval not measure? Multi-file changes, codebase navigation, bug diagnosis, test writing, framework knowledge, or iterative debugging. It only tests single-function generation from a docstring in Python.
Data sourced from the BenchLM.ai HumanEval leaderboard. Last updated March 2026.
New models drop every week. We send one email a week with what moved and why.
Share This Report
Copy the link, post it, or save a PDF version.
On this page
Which models moved up, what’s new, and what it costs. One email a week, 3-min read.
Free. One email per week.
React Native Evals measures whether AI coding models can complete real React Native implementation tasks across navigation, animation, and async state. Here's what it tests, why it matters, and how it differs from SWE-bench and LiveCodeBench.
Terminal-Bench 2.0 measures whether AI models can work through real terminal-based coding and ops workflows instead of just answering in chat.
LiveCodeBench uses fresh competitive programming problems from LeetCode, Codeforces, and AtCoder to prevent data contamination. Here's why it matters and which models lead.