Composer 2.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Updated October 2, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Composer 2.5

Cursor

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Model B

Qwen3.6 Plus

Alibaba

55.21/100

Supported · Public rank #65

90% interval 46.2–64.2

Shared results: 4
Composer 2.5 only: 4
Qwen3.6 Plus only: 44
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

Supported: Qwen3.6 PlusHow the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Composer 2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Composer 2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Composer 2.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

—Composer 2.542.5Qwen3.6 Plus

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 7.7
Composer 2.5:69.3%
Qwen3.6 Plus:61.6%
Composer 2.5 source Qwen3.6 Plus source
SWE MultilingualCoding
Normalized gap 6.0
Composer 2.5:79.8%
Qwen3.6 Plus:73.8%
Composer 2.5 source Qwen3.6 Plus source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable

Composer 2.5: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 33.5; Supported · #75/119
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 13 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable

Composer 2.5: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 42.5; Supported · #60/144
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable

Composer 2.5: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 61.3; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Composer 2.5: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 67.2; #23/49
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable

Composer 2.5: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 52.4; Supported · #61/171
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 8 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Composer 2.5: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 93.8; #4/16
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Composer 2.5: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 82.5; #48/125
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Composer 2.5: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.0; #5/7
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 4 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Composer 2.5 and Qwen3.6 Plus
Category	Composer 2.5	Qwen3.6 Plus	Basis	Reading
Agentic	Not ranked	33.5Supported · #75/119	Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 13 public rows	Not comparable
Coding	Not ranked	42.5Supported · #60/144	Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 7 public rows	Not comparable
Reasoning	Not ranked	61.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	Not ranked	67.2#23/49	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable
Knowledge	Not ranked	52.4Supported · #61/171	Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 8 public rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	93.8#4/16	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not ranked	82.5#48/125	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	Not ranked	62.0#5/7	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 4 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Composer 2.5: $0.00175; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Composer 2.5: $0.0325; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Composer 2.5: $0.135; Does not fit in one request; Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Composer 2.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationComposer 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Composer 2.5

200K

Qwen3.6 Plus

API model ID

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Composer 2.5

Not published

Qwen3.6 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Composer 2.5

Reasoning

Qwen3.6 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

Composer 2.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

License

Composer 2.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

Composer 2.5

2026-05-18

Qwen3.6 Plus

2026-04-02

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Composer 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Composer 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Composer 2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Composer 2.5 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Composer 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Composer 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence52 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Composer 2.569.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus61.6%
Source
Composer 2.5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Composer 2.558.4%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus53.2%
Source
Composer 2.5 leads this result
Claw-Eval
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus58.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus57.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus70.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus44.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus41.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus39.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus48.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus74.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus74.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus50.60%
Source
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus18.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Composer 2.569.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Composer 2.579.8%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus73.8%
Source
Composer 2.5 leads this result
cursorBench31
Composer 2.563.2%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Composer 2.556.1%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Composer 2.579.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus73.4%
Source
Composer 2.5 leads this result
CursorBench 4.0
Composer 2.527.7%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus56.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus25.56%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

AI-Needle
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus68.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
LongBench v2
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus62%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus84.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus68.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus81.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
V*
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus96.9%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus90.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus71.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus88.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus93.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus28.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus84.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus57.9%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus75.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

AIME26
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus95.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus96.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus83.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus26.207%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Composer 2.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus8.333%
Source
Not directly comparable

52 public results · 4 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch Composer 2.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated October 2, 2026

Composer 2.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Long documents

Coding work

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, Composer 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which is better for coding, Composer 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which costs less, Composer 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, Composer 2.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch Composer 2.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus