Composer 2.5
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by Anysphere / Cursor · Released 2025-01-01
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for Composer 2.5?
Architectural Overview
Frontier foundation model developed by Anysphere / Cursor featuring Full-Repository Diff & Refactor Specialist architecture.
Optimal Production Use Cases
Precision multi-file git diff synthesis, automated code review, IDE background indexing, and full-stack repo migration.
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model your expected production workload across prompt (input) and completion (output) tokens.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$1.8/1M in · $7.2/1M out
$0.18/1M in · $0.72/1M out
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving Composer 2.5
Composer 2.5 vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 55.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.80 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $4.00 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (2.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers faster response latency with 140ms TTFT (40ms faster than Composer 2.5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku.
Composer 2.5 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Composer 2.5 is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (140ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 63.7% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Composer 2.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Composer 2.5 is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (470ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 70.3% for Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
Composer 2.5 vs Claude Opus 5
Composer 2.5 is 64.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (2.8x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (160ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 74.6% for Composer 2.5.
Composer 2.5 vs Codestral 25.01
Codestral 25.01 is 83.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.90 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (6.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Codestral 25.01 delivers faster response latency with 150ms TTFT (30ms faster than Composer 2.5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Codestral 25.01.
Composer 2.5 vs DeepSeek-R1
DeepSeek-R1 is 69.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.55 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $2.19 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (3.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (1620ms faster than DeepSeek-R1). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek-R1.
Composer 2.5 vs DeepSeek-V3
DeepSeek-V3 is 92.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (12.9x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (160ms faster than DeepSeek-V3). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek-V3.
Composer 2.5 vs DeepSeek-V4 Flash
DeepSeek-V4 Flash is 92.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.56 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (12.9x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek-V4 Flash delivers faster response latency with 150ms TTFT (30ms faster than Composer 2.5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 62.4% for DeepSeek-V4 Flash.
Composer 2.5 vs Fable 5
Composer 2.5 is 10.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (60ms faster than Fable 5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Composer 2.5 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 94.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (18.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (200ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 48.0% for Gemini 2.0 Flash.
Composer 2.5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is 95.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.08 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.32 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (22.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.7 Flash delivers faster response latency with 75ms TTFT (105ms faster than Composer 2.5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 68.2% for Gemini 3.7 Flash.
Composer 2.5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
GLM 5.3 Flash is 91.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (12.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (50ms faster than Composer 2.5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
Composer 2.5 vs OpenAI GPT-4o
Composer 2.5 is 28.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.4x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (100ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
Composer 2.5 vs GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna is 90.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.18 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.72 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (10.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5.6 Luna delivers faster response latency with 90ms TTFT (90ms faster than Composer 2.5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 48.5% for GPT-5.6 Luna.
Composer 2.5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Composer 2.5 is 77.5% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $8.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $32.00 for output tokens (4.4x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (240ms faster than GPT-5.6 Sol). GPT-5.6 Sol leads coding benchmarks at 79.5% SWE-bench vs. 74.6% for Composer 2.5.
Composer 2.5 vs GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.50 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (1.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (30ms faster than GPT-5.6 Terra). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 65.4% for GPT-5.6 Terra.
Composer 2.5 vs Grok 3
Composer 2.5 is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (1.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (670ms faster than Grok 3). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 58.5% for Grok 3.
Composer 2.5 vs xAI Grok 4.6
Composer 2.5 is 10.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (1.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (100ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 74.6% for Composer 2.5.
Composer 2.5 vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 90.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.18 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (10.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (240ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct.
Composer 2.5 vs Mistral Large 2
Composer 2.5 is 10.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (1.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (370ms faster than Mistral Large 2). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 39.0% for Mistral Large 2.
Composer 2.5 vs OpenAI o1
Composer 2.5 is 88.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (8.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (670ms faster than OpenAI o1). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 48.9% for OpenAI o1.
Composer 2.5 vs o3-mini
o3-mini is 38.9% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (1.6x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (1020ms faster than o3-mini). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 49.3% for o3-mini.
Composer 2.5 vs Microsoft Phi-4 (14B)
Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) is 93.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (15.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) delivers faster response latency with 110ms TTFT (70ms faster than Composer 2.5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 42.1% for Microsoft Phi-4 (14B).
Composer 2.5 vs Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct is 80.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (5.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (240ms faster than Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 44.0% for Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct.
Composer 2.5 vs Qwen 2.5 Max
Qwen 2.5 Max is 84.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.28 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.84 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (6.4x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (300ms faster than Qwen 2.5 Max). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Qwen 2.5 Max.
Composer 2.5 vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 93.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (15.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (60ms faster than Composer 2.5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does Composer 2.5 cost per 1M tokens?
Composer 2.5 costs $1.80 per million prompt (input) tokens and $7.20 per million completion (output) tokens.
What is the context window for Composer 2.5?
Composer 2.5 supports a maximum context window of 262,144 tokens, with a maximum single-generation output of 32,768 tokens.
What are the primary use cases for Composer 2.5?
Precision multi-file git diff synthesis, automated code review, IDE background indexing, and full-stack repo migration.