Qwen3.5vsComposer 2
Qwen3.5 | Composer 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | 397B | — |
Context window | 1M | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 76.4% | — |
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. | 69.3% | 73.7%Best |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | — | 52.2% |
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. | — | 75% |
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. | 52.5% | 61.7%Best |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 69% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 28.7% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 88.4% | — |
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. | 62.2% | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 80.8% | — |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 79% | — |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 85% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Feb 16 2026 | Mar 19 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Which is better: Qwen3.5 or Composer 2?
Composer 2 leads Qwen3.5 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Multilingual, Terminal-Bench 2.0). Qwen3.5 shipped 31 days before Composer 2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Qwen3.5 is open weight, while Composer 2 is proprietary.
On SWE-Bench Multilingual, Composer 2 leads at 73.7% vs Qwen3.5 at 69.3%. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, Composer 2 leads at 61.7% vs Qwen3.5 at 52.5%.
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.5 was released by Qwen on Feb 16 2026.
Composer 2 was released by SpaceXAI on Mar 19 2026.
Composer 2 leads on SWE-Bench Multilingual — Qwen3.5 69.3% vs Composer 2 73.7%.
Qwen3.5 is an open weight model released by Qwen. Composer 2 is a proprietary model released by SpaceXAI.
Other comparisons
Qwen3.5vsClaude Opus 5Composer 2vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberComposer 2vsGPT-5.6-CyberQwen3.5vsGemini 3.7 FlashComposer 2vsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.5vsMuse GlimmerComposer 2vsMuse GlimmerQwen3.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Composer 2vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2vsMistral Medium 3.5