DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsComposer 2.5
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 | Composer 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 38% | — |
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 1.0Artificial 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 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. | 82.7%Best | 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% |
Personal tool use Toolathlon-VerifiedTests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | 70.3% | — |
Cybersecurity CyberGymTests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 76.7% | — |
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. | 25.1% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Jul 31 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 or Composer 2.5?
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 leads Composer 2.5 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench 2.1). Composer 2.5 shipped 74 days before DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731, 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 Terminal-Bench 2.1, DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 leads at 82.7% vs Composer 2.5 at 73%.
Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 was released by DeepSeek on Jul 31 2026.
Composer 2.5 was released by SpaceXAI on May 18 2026.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 leads on Terminal-Bench 2.1 — DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 82.7% vs Composer 2.5 73%.
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGPT-5.6-CyberComposer 2.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGemini 3.7 FlashComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.7 FlashDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMuse GlimmerComposer 2.5vsMuse GlimmerDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsKimi K3Composer 2.5vsKimi K3