Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | 397B | — |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.60 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $3.60 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.065Alibaba | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.13Darkbloom | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like 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% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can 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% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real 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% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel'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. | — | 58% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 69% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity'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% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 88.4% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 62.2% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 80.8% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 79% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests 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 | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Qwen3.5vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Composer 2vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Qwen3.5vsGPT-6.1 SolComposer 2vsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.5vsGemini 4 ArgonComposer 2vsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Composer 2vsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashComposer 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2vsMistral Medium 3.5Frequently asked questions
Composer 2 leads Qwen3.5 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Multilingual, Terminal-Bench 2.0). Only Qwen3.5 has a verified first-party API price: $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Composer 2. 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 closed.
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%.