Composer 2.5vsGrok 4.6
Composer 2.5 | Grok 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | 69.9%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 1.1Artificial 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. | — | 65.9% |
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% | — |
Agentic coding FrontierCode v1.1 (Extended) · extended splitfrontier-difficulty agentic coding tasks (v1.1, extended split) | — | 61.3% |
Expert software engineering APEX-SWEexpert-level software-engineering tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 56.4% |
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 3.0command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 26% |
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% | — |
Expert agentic work APEX-Agentsexpert-level agentic work tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 57.5% |
Agentic legal work Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkHarvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | — | 15.8% |
Overall intelligence AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis composite intelligence index across evals | — | 61 |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1753 |
Knowledge work AA-BriefcaseArtificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo) | — | 1577 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Cursor | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | May 18 2026 | Aug 12 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Composer 2.5 or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 leads Composer 2.5 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (CursorBench v3.2). Composer 2.5 shipped 86 days before Grok 4.6, 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, Grok 4.6 leads at 69.9% vs Composer 2.5 at 56.1%.
Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 was released by Cursor on May 18 2026.
Grok 4.6 was released by SpaceXAI on Aug 12 2026.
Grok 4.6 leads on CursorBench v3.2 — Composer 2.5 56.1% vs Grok 4.6 69.9%.
Other comparisons
Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5Grok 4.6vsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberGrok 4.6vsGPT-5.6-CyberComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.6 FlashGrok 4.6vsGemini 3.6 FlashComposer 2.5vsMuse GlimmerGrok 4.6vsMuse GlimmerComposer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Grok 4.6vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.6vsMistral Medium 3.5