Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Composer 2

Cursor

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Composer 2 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Alibaba

59.5/100

Supported · Public rank #61

90% interval 48.3–70.7

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.

1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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

    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 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

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    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 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 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

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
Composer 2 only
4
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
14
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Directional only
Composer 2
61.7
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
56.4
Weighted basis
1 vs 3 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Not comparable
Composer 2
58.0
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
72.0
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Composer 2
Not measured
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
60.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Composer 2
Not measured
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
83.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 3 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Composer 2
Not measured
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Composer 2
Not measured
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
82.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Composer 2
Not measured
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
77.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Composer 2
Not measured
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
93.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

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.

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
$0.00175
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Composer 2
$0.0325
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Composer 2
$0.135
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

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

Context window

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

Composer 2

200K

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

262K

API model ID

Composer 2

Not sourced

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

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

Not published

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Composer 2

Not sourced

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Composer 2

Not sourced

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Composer 2

Not sourced

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Composer 2

Reasoning

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Reasoning

Weight access

Composer 2

Proprietary

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Open Weight

License

Composer 2

Proprietary

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Open Weight

Release date

Composer 2

2026-03-19

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

2026-03-04

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
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the larger documented window (262K).

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

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence19 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Composer 261.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B49.4%
    Source

    Composer 2 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B63.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B58%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE Multilingual

    Composer 273.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Rebench

    Composer 258%
    Source
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Composer 296.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Composer 261.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B72%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B60.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B86.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B67.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B82.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B83.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B74.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B86.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B77.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B93.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Composer 2—
    Qwen3.5-122B-A10B93.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Composer 2 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

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 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Composer 2 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

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 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 13, 2026

Watch Composer 2 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.