Composer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
Composer 2.5 | DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 | |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmarks | ||
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 54% | — |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 79.8% | — |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.2Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | 56.1% | — |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | 63.2% | — |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.0Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. Higher is better. | 18% | — |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 92% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 73% | 82.7%Best |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | 69.3% | — |
Personal tool use Toolathlon-VerifiedTests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 70.3% |
Cybersecurity CyberGymTests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | — | 76.7% |
Business workflows AutomationBenchTests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | — | 25.1% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Cursor | DeepSeek |
| Release date | May 18 2026 | Jul 31 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Composer 2.5 or DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731?
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 leads Composer 2.5 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench 2.1). Composer 2.5 shipped 74 days before DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On Terminal-Bench 2.1, DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 leads at 82.7% vs Composer 2.5 at 73%.
Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 was released by Cursor on May 18 2026.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 was released by DeepSeek on Jul 31 2026.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 leads on Terminal-Bench 2.1 — Composer 2.5 73% vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 82.7%.
Other comparisons
Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsGPT-5.6 SolDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGPT-5.6 SolComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.6 FlashDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGemini 3.6 FlashComposer 2.5vsMuse Spark 1.1DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMuse Spark 1.1Composer 2.5vsGrok 4.5DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGrok 4.5Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMistral Medium 3.5