Model comparison
Composer 2 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Composer 2 unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: Composer 2 not scored; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Composer 2 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Composer 2; 55 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Composer 2 only
- 2
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 55
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Composer 2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.
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 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 61 versus 59. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Composer 2's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 61.7 against 51.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 61.7% to 51.5%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Composer 258.0 | Margin→ 15.8 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Agentic | Composer 261.7 | Margin← 10.2 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Knowledge | Composer 2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Math | Composer 2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Multimodal | Composer 2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
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 51.5%Winner: Composer 2Δ 10.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: Composer 2 scored 61.7%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 51.5%. 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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Composer 2$0.5 input / $2.5 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Composer 2Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Composer 2Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Composer 2200K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticComposer 2 wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 61.7% | 51.5% | Composer 2 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1049 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 42.65% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73.7% | 67.2% | Composer 2 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 58% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 96.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 61.7% | 51.5% | Composer 2 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 41.9% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 34.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 35.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 31.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 20.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -21.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 18.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 49.7% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.3% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.0% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 64.4% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Composer 2 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Composer 2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 61 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 61.7% and 51.5%.
Which is better for coding, Composer 2 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 58. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Composer 2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.7 versus 51.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.