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. | 2.4T | — |
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 | — |
These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can 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. | — | 54% |
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. | — | 79.8% |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | — | 27.7% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial 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. | 69.3% | — |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic coding — Artificial 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 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. | — | 81% |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests 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. | 64.9% | — |
QwenSWEBench V2Software engineering — Qwen's in-house coding benchmark, second version, built around complex real-world software-engineering tasks. Scores are not comparable with the first version. Higher is better. | 70% | — |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | 29% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 73% |
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. | — | 69.3% |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests 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. | 64% | — |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | 76.1% | — |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | 73.3% | — |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 50.8% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 82.7% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1071 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Sep 2 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Composer 2.5vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsGPT-6.1 SolComposer 2.5vsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.8-Max-0902vsGemini 4 ArgonComposer 2.5vsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.8-Max-0902vsMuse Spark 1.3Composer 2.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashComposer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.8-Max-0902vsMistral Medium 3.5Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.8-Max-0902 and Composer 2.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Composer 2.5 shipped 107 days before Qwen3.8-Max-0902, 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.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Qwen3.8-Max-0902 and Composer 2.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.