Composer 2.5vsGLM-4.7
Composer 2.5 | GLM-4.7 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context window | — | 128k |
| 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. | 54% | — |
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. | — | 73.8% |
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% | — |
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. | 69.3%Best | 41% |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 52% |
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. | — | 24.8% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 42.8% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 85.7% |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | — | 1433 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | SpaceXAI | Z.ai |
| Release date | May 18 2026 | Dec 22 2025 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Composer 2.5 or GLM-4.7?
Composer 2.5 leads GLM-4.7 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench 2.0). GLM-4.7 shipped 147 days before Composer 2.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Composer 2.5 is proprietary, while GLM-4.7 is open weight.
On Terminal-Bench 2.0, Composer 2.5 leads at 69.3% vs GLM-4.7 at 41%.
Frequently asked questions
Composer 2.5 was released by SpaceXAI on May 18 2026.
GLM-4.7 was released by Z.ai on Dec 22 2025.
Composer 2.5 leads on Terminal-Bench 2.0 — Composer 2.5 69.3% vs GLM-4.7 41%.
Composer 2.5 is a proprietary model released by SpaceXAI. GLM-4.7 is an open weight model released by Z.ai.
Other comparisons
Composer 2.5vsClaude Opus 5GLM-4.7vsClaude Opus 5Composer 2.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberGLM-4.7vsGPT-5.6-CyberComposer 2.5vsGemini 3.7 FlashGLM-4.7vsGemini 3.7 FlashComposer 2.5vsMuse GlimmerGLM-4.7vsMuse GlimmerComposer 2.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GLM-4.7vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Composer 2.5vsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-4.7vsMistral Medium 3.5