Composer 2 vs Qwen3.5 397B

Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.

Composer 2 and Qwen3.5 397B finish on the same overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Composer 2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Composer 2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Composer 2 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.

Quick Verdict

Treat this as a split decision. Composer 2 makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window; Qwen3.5 397B is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Agentic

Composer 2

Composer 2

61.7

Qwen3.5 397B

56.9

61.7%
Terminal-Bench 2.0
58%
Coming soon
BrowseComp
62%
Coming soon
OSWorld-Verified
52%

Coding

Coming soon

Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.

73.7%
SWE Multilingual
Coming soon
97.2%
React Native Evals
Coming soon
Coming soon
HumanEval
75%
Coming soon
SWE-bench Verified
42%
Coming soon
LiveCodeBench
39%
Coming soon
SWE-bench Pro
42%

Multimodal & Grounded

Coming soon

Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.

Coming soon
MMMU-Pro
56%

Reasoning

Coming soon

Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.

Coming soon
MuSR
78%
Coming soon
BBH
82%
Coming soon
MRCRv2
71%

Knowledge

Coming soon

Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.

Coming soon
MMLU
83%
Coming soon
GPQA
82%
Coming soon
SuperGPQA
80%
Coming soon
MMLU-Pro
73%
Coming soon
HLE
10%
Coming soon
FrontierScience
71%
Coming soon
SimpleQA
80%

Instruction Following

Coming soon

Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.

Coming soon
IFEval
82%

Multilingual

Coming soon

Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.

Coming soon
MGSM
82%
Coming soon
MMLU-ProX
77%

Mathematics

Coming soon

Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.

Coming soon
AIME 2023
83%
Coming soon
AIME 2024
85%
Coming soon
AIME 2025
84%
Coming soon
HMMT Feb 2023
79%
Coming soon
HMMT Feb 2024
81%
Coming soon
HMMT Feb 2025
80%
Coming soon
BRUMO 2025
82%
Coming soon
MATH-500
81%

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better, Composer 2 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Composer 2 and Qwen3.5 397B are tied on overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Composer 2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.7 versus 56.9. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Last updated: March 18, 2026

Weekly LLM Benchmark Digest

Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.