Qwen3.8-27BvsComposer 2.5
Qwen3.8-27B | Composer 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | 27B | — |
Context window | 262k | — |
| 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. | 61.7%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 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 42.2% | — |
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% |
Repo-level code generation NL2Repo-BenchTests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | 42.3% | — |
Software engineering QwenSWEBenchQwen's in-house coding benchmark for evaluating a model's ability to complete software-engineering work. Higher is better. | 79% | — |
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. | 90.3% | — |
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% | 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% |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | 33.4% | — |
Long-horizon office work CoWorkBenchTests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | 70.7% | — |
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. | 30.8% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 89.2% | — |
Instruction following IFBenchTests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | 79.5% | — |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · pass@1A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | 20.4% | — |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · scoreThe graded score on the same desktop and operating-system tasks in Agent's Last Exam, giving partial credit for progress beyond the strict pass-or-fail result. Higher is better. | 42.9% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Aug 14 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Which is better: Qwen3.8-27B or Composer 2.5?
Qwen3.8-27B leads Composer 2.5 on 1 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1). Composer 2.5 shipped 88 days before Qwen3.8-27B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Qwen3.8-27B is open weight, while Composer 2.5 is proprietary.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Qwen3.8-27B leads at 61.7% vs Composer 2.5 at 54%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, both models score 73%.
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.8-27B was released by Qwen on Aug 14 2026.
Composer 2.5 was released by SpaceXAI on May 18 2026.
Qwen3.8-27B leads on SWE-Bench Pro — Qwen3.8-27B 61.7% vs Composer 2.5 54%.
Qwen3.8-27B is an open weight model released by Qwen. Composer 2.5 is a proprietary model released by SpaceXAI.
Other comparisons
Qwen3.8-27BvsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-27BvsGPT-5.6-CyberComposer 2.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberQwen3.8-27BvsGemini 3.7 FlashComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-27BvsMuse GlimmerComposer 2.5vsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-27BvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Composer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-27BvsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5