Composer 2.5vsGPT-5.6 Terra
Composer 2.5 | GPT-5.6 Terra | |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 53% |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | — | 5.4% |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 26% |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 30.4% |
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% | 64.9%Best |
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 computer work Frontier-Bench v0.1A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | — | 20.8% |
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% | 84.3%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% | — |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | — | 1467 |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | — | 1526 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Cursor | OpenAI |
| Release date | May 18 2026 | Jun 26 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Composer 2.5 or GPT-5.6 Terra?
GPT-5.6 Terra leads Composer 2.5 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (CursorBench v3.2, Terminal-Bench 2.1). Composer 2.5 shipped 39 days before GPT-5.6 Terra, 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 CursorBench v3.2, GPT-5.6 Terra leads at 64.9% vs Composer 2.5 at 56.1%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, GPT-5.6 Terra leads at 84.3% vs Composer 2.5 at 73%.
Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 was released by Cursor on May 18 2026.
GPT-5.6 Terra was released by OpenAI on Jun 26 2026.
GPT-5.6 Terra leads on CursorBench v3.2 — Composer 2.5 56.1% vs GPT-5.6 Terra 64.9%.
Other comparisons
Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5GPT-5.6 TerravsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsGemini 3.6 FlashGPT-5.6 TerravsGemini 3.6 FlashComposer 2.5vsMuse GlimmerGPT-5.6 TerravsMuse GlimmerComposer 2.5vsGrok 4.5GPT-5.6 TerravsGrok 4.5Composer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731GPT-5.6 TerravsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5GPT-5.6 TerravsMistral Medium 3.5