Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Composer 2
~62
0/8 categoriesQwen3.6 Plus
69
Winner · 1/8 categoriesComposer 2· Qwen3.6 Plus
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 69 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 62 against 61.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 61.7% to 61.6%.
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 Plus. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Composer 2.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| AgenticQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 61.7% | 61.6% |
| Claw-Eval | — | 58.7% |
| QwenClawBench | — | 57.2% |
| QwenWebBench | — | 1502 |
| TAU3-Bench | — | 70.7% |
| VITA-Bench | — | 44.3% |
| DeepPlanning | — | 41.5% |
| Toolathlon | — | 39.8% |
| MCP Atlas | — | 48.2% |
| MCP-Tasks | — | 74.1% |
| WideResearch | — | 74.3% |
| OSWorld-Verified | — | 62.5% |
| Coding | ||
| SWE Multilingual | 73.7% | 73.8% |
| React Native Evals | 96.2% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.8% |
| SWE-bench Pro | — | 56.6% |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | — | 87.1% |
| NL2Repo | — | 37.9% |
| Multimodal & Grounded | ||
| MMMU | — | 86.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | — | 78.8% |
| RealWorldQA | — | 85.4% |
| OmniDocBench 1.5 | — | 91.2% |
| Video-MME (with subtitle) | — | 87.8% |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle) | — | 84.2% |
| MathVision | — | 88.0% |
| We-Math | — | 89.0% |
| DynaMath | — | 88.0% |
| MStar | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleVQA | — | 67.3% |
| ChatCVQA | — | 81.5% |
| MMLongBench-Doc | — | 62.0% |
| CC-OCR | — | 83.4% |
| AI2D_TEST | — | 94.4% |
| CountBench | — | 97.6% |
| RefCOCO (avg) | — | 93.5% |
| ODINW13 | — | 51.8% |
| ERQA | — | 65.7% |
| VideoMMMU | — | 84.0% |
| MLVU (M-Avg) | — | 86.7% |
| ScreenSpot Pro | — | 68.2% |
| Reasoning | ||
| AI-Needle | — | 68.3% |
| LongBench v2 | — | 62% |
| Knowledge | ||
| GPQA | — | 90.4% |
| SuperGPQA | — | 71.6% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 88.5% |
| MMLU-Redux | — | 94.5% |
| C-Eval | — | 93.3% |
| HLE | — | 28.8% |
| Instruction Following | ||
| IFEval | — | 94.3% |
| IFBench | — | 74.2% |
| Multilingual | ||
| MMLU-ProX | — | 84.7% |
| NOVA-63 | — | 57.9% |
| INCLUDE | — | 85.1% |
| PolyMath | — | 77.4% |
| VWT2k-lite | — | 84.3% |
| MAXIFE | — | 88.2% |
| Mathematics | ||
| AIME26 | — | 95.3% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 96.7% |
| HMMT Nov 2025 | — | 94.6% |
| HMMT Feb 2026 | — | 87.8% |
| MMAnswerBench | — | 83.8% |
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead overall, 69 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 61.7% and 61.6%.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 61.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.