Gemini 3.0 ProvsComposer 2.5
Gemini 3.0 Pro | Composer 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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% |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 76.2% | — |
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. | 67% | 92%Best |
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% |
Abstract reasoning ARC-AGI-2Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 31.1% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 91.9% | — |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 81% | — |
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. | 1486 | — |
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. | 1439 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | SpaceXAI | |
| Release date | Nov 18 2025 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Gemini 3.0 Pro or Composer 2.5?
Composer 2.5 leads Gemini 3.0 Pro on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Next.js Evals). Gemini 3.0 Pro shipped 181 days before Composer 2.5, 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 Next.js Evals, Composer 2.5 leads at 92% vs Gemini 3.0 Pro at 67%.
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.0 Pro was released by Google on Nov 18 2025.
Composer 2.5 was released by SpaceXAI on May 18 2026.
Composer 2.5 leads on Next.js Evals — Gemini 3.0 Pro 67% vs Composer 2.5 92%.
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.0 ProvsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5Gemini 3.0 ProvsGPT-5.6-CyberComposer 2.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberGemini 3.0 ProvsMuse GlimmerComposer 2.5vsMuse GlimmerGemini 3.0 ProvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Composer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 3.0 ProvsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.0 ProvsKimi K3Composer 2.5vsKimi K3