Qwen3.7-MaxvsComposer 2.5
Qwen3.7-Max | 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. | 71% | — |
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. | 60.6%Best | 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% |
Competitive coding LiveCodeBenchCoding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | 91.6% | — |
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. | 69.7%Best | 69.3% |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 76.4% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 92.4% | — |
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. | 1475 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | May 20 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Qwen3.7-Max or Composer 2.5?
Qwen3.7-Max leads Composer 2.5 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.0). Composer 2.5 shipped 2 days before Qwen3.7-Max, 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 SWE-Bench Pro, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 60.6% vs Composer 2.5 at 54%. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 69.7% vs Composer 2.5 at 69.3%.
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.7-Max was released by Qwen on May 20 2026.
Composer 2.5 was released by SpaceXAI on May 18 2026.
Qwen3.7-Max leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Qwen3.7-Max 60.6% vs Composer 2.5 54%.
Other comparisons
Qwen3.7-MaxvsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.7-MaxvsGPT-5.6-CyberComposer 2.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberQwen3.7-MaxvsGemini 3.7 FlashComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.7-MaxvsMuse GlimmerComposer 2.5vsMuse GlimmerQwen3.7-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Composer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.7-MaxvsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5