Model comparison
Composer 2 vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Composer 2 unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Composer 2 and Qwen3.6-27B share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Composer 2; 51 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Composer 2 only
- 2
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 51
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Composer 2 makes more sense if agentic is the priority; Qwen3.6-27B is the better fit if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Composer 2 and Qwen3.6-27B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign 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 Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Composer 2.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Composer 2 | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Composer 258.0 | Margin→ 19.5 | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Agentic | Composer 261.7 | Margin← 2.4 | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Knowledge | Composer 2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Math | Composer 2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Multimodal | Composer 2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 61.7%B 59.3%Winner: Composer 2Δ 2.4Terminal-Bench 2.0: Composer 2 scored 61.7%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 59.3%. Composer 2 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Composer 2$0.5 input / $2.5 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Composer 2Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Composer 2Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Composer 2200K | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Qwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticComposer 2 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 61.7% | 59.3% | Composer 2 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 54.84% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73.7% | 71.3% | Composer 2 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 58% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 96.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 61.7% | 59.3% | Composer 2 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 53.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 24% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 37.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 21.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -19.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 19.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 48.3% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Composer 2 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Composer 2 and Qwen3.6-27B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Composer 2 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 58. Inside this category, SWE Multilingual is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Composer 2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.7 versus 59.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.