Qwen3.6vsComposer 2.5
Qwen3.6 | Composer 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | 35B | — |
Context window | 256k | — |
| 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. | 49.5% | 54%Best |
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. | 73.4% | — |
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. | 67.2% | 79.8%Best |
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. | — | 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. | 51.5% | 69.3%Best |
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. | 21.4% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 86% | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 78% | — |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 75.3% | — |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 81.7% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Apr 16 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Which is better: Qwen3.6 or Composer 2.5?
Composer 2.5 leads Qwen3.6 on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Multilingual, Terminal-Bench 2.0). Qwen3.6 shipped 32 days before Composer 2.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Qwen3.6 is open weight, while Composer 2.5 is proprietary.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Composer 2.5 leads at 54% vs Qwen3.6 at 49.5%. On SWE-Bench Multilingual, Composer 2.5 leads at 79.8% vs Qwen3.6 at 67.2%. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, Composer 2.5 leads at 69.3% vs Qwen3.6 at 51.5%.
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.6 was released by Qwen on Apr 16 2026.
Composer 2.5 was released by SpaceXAI on May 18 2026.
Composer 2.5 leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Qwen3.6 49.5% vs Composer 2.5 54%.
Qwen3.6 is an open weight model released by Qwen. Composer 2.5 is a proprietary model released by SpaceXAI.