Composer 2.5vsQwen3.8-Max
Composer 2.5 | Qwen3.8-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 2.4T |
Context window | — | 1M |
| 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% | 67.7%Best |
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% | — |
Research reproduction PaperBenchreproducing the results of an ML research paper end to end | — | 93% |
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% | 86.6%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% | — |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 53.4% |
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. | — | 86.1% |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 88.4% |
Visual reasoning BabyVisionTests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 82% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Cursor | Qwen |
| Release date | May 18 2026 | Aug 3 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Composer 2.5 or Qwen3.8-Max?
Qwen3.8-Max leads Composer 2.5 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1). Composer 2.5 shipped 77 days before Qwen3.8-Max, 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 SWE-Bench Pro, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 67.7% vs Composer 2.5 at 54%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 86.6% vs Composer 2.5 at 73%.
Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 was released by Cursor on May 18 2026.
Qwen3.8-Max was released by Qwen on Aug 3 2026.
Qwen3.8-Max leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Composer 2.5 54% vs Qwen3.8-Max 67.7%.
Other comparisons
Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-MaxvsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-MaxvsGPT-5.6 SolComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.8-MaxvsGemini 3.6 FlashComposer 2.5vsMuse Spark 1.1Qwen3.8-MaxvsMuse Spark 1.1Composer 2.5vsGrok 4.5Qwen3.8-MaxvsGrok 4.5Composer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Qwen3.8-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731