Composer 2.5vsGLM-5.3
Composer 2.5 | GLM-5.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 743B |
| 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 1.1Artificial 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. | — | 66.9% |
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% | — |
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) | — | 28.3% |
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% | — |
Cybersecurity CyberGymTests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | — | 84.5% |
Cybersecurity ExploitBenchA 'capability ladder' for security research, built by CMU researchers: the AI is given known bugs in Chrome's V8 engine and scored on how far it gets toward a working exploit inside a research sandbox — from understanding the patch to triggering a crash. Higher is better. | — | 54.4% |
Cybersecurity ExploitGym · 6-hour budgetCan an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 6-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 130 |
Cybersecurity ExploitGym · 2-hour budgetCan an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 2-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 105 |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 62.5% |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last ExamA hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 28.5% |
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. | — | 48.2% |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1769 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Cursor | Z.ai |
| Release date | May 18 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Composer 2.5 or GLM-5.3?
Composer 2.5 and GLM-5.3 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Composer 2.5 shipped 88 days before GLM-5.3, 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 GLM-5.3 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 was released by Cursor on May 18 2026.
GLM-5.3 was released by Z.ai on Aug 14 2026.
Other comparisons
Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5GLM-5.3vsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberGLM-5.3vsGPT-5.6-CyberComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.7 FlashGLM-5.3vsGemini 3.7 FlashComposer 2.5vsMuse GlimmerGLM-5.3vsMuse GlimmerComposer 2.5vsGrok 4.6GLM-5.3vsGrok 4.6Composer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GLM-5.3vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813