Composer 2.5vsGemini 3.6 Flash
Composer 2.5 | Gemini 3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | 63.2% | — |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 49% |
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% | — |
ML engineering MLE-BenchCan the AI do the work of a machine-learning engineer? It competes in real Kaggle competitions — building, training, and tuning models end to end — and the score reflects how well it places. Higher is better. | — | 63.9% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
Browser agent BU BenchCan the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | — | 68% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 83% |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1421 |
| Timeline | ||
| Release gap | Composer 2.5 shipped 64 days before Gemini 3.6 Flash | |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Cursor | |
| Release date | May 18 2026 | Jul 21 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Composer 2.5 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
Composer 2.5 and Gemini 3.6 Flash don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Composer 2.5 shipped 64 days before Gemini 3.6 Flash, 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.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Composer 2.5 and Gemini 3.6 Flash don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 was released by Cursor on May 18 2026.
Gemini 3.6 Flash was released by Google on Jul 21 2026.
Other comparisons
Composer 2.5vsClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.6 FlashvsClaude Sonnet 5Composer 2.5vsGPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.6 FlashvsGPT-5.6 SolComposer 2.5vsMuse Spark 1.1Gemini 3.6 FlashvsMuse Spark 1.1Composer 2.5vsGrok 4.5Gemini 3.6 FlashvsGrok 4.5Composer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-ProGemini 3.6 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-ProComposer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.6 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5