How do Qwen3.8 27B and Composer 2.5 compare on coding benchmarks?

The comparison table shows SWE-bench, SWE-Pro, SWE-Atlas, Terminal-Bench, DeepSWE, and coding agent index scores for both Qwen3.8 27B and Composer 2.5 when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

Qwen3.8 27B vs Composer 2.5: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Q: Which is better: Qwen3.8 27B or Composer 2.5?

AskClash compares Qwen3.8 27B and Composer 2.5 side by side across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, AskClash ACB, and context window so you can see which model wins on each benchmark.

Side-by-side Qwen3.8 27B vs Composer 2.5 comparison across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, context window, and AskClash RWT. Green marks the winner on each benchmark.

Open live leaderboard Qwen3.8 27B model page Composer 2.5 model page

Rank #17 vs #54AskClash overall scores 57.0 vs 22.4.

Pricing $0.45/$3.20 vs $0.50/$2.50Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Open Weight vs ProprietaryAlibaba vs Cursor.

Qwen3.8 27B vs Composer 2.5 benchmark comparison

Green cells highlight the winning model for each metric. Scores are cached from the AskClash LLM leaderboard snapshot.

Metric	Qwen3.8 27B	Composer 2.5
Overall Score	57.0	22.4
Leaderboard Rank	#17	#54
ACB	56.4	53.2
RWT	—	8.5
Coding Agent Index	—	38.2
HLE	30.8	—
GPQA	89.2	—
IFEval	79.5	—
SWE-Pro	61.7	47.0
SWE-Atlas	—	72.0
Terminal-Bench	73.0	69.3
DeepSWE	42.2	—
OSWorld	84.3	—
CharXiv	90.2	—
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$0.45	$0.50
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$3.20	$2.50
Context Window	262K	200K
Benchmarks Published	9	5

Qwen3.8 27B vs Composer 2.5 head-to-head charts

Qwen3.8 27B leads 4 and Composer 2.5 leads 0 of 4 shared benchmarks. Composer 2.5 is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

Qwen3.8 27BComposer 2.5

Overall

57.0Qwen3.8 27B

22.4Composer 2.5

ACB

56.4Qwen3.8 27B

53.2Composer 2.5

SWE-Pro

61.7Qwen3.8 27B

47.0Composer 2.5

Terminal-Bench

73.0Qwen3.8 27B

69.3Composer 2.5

Qwen3.8 27B

Input$0.45

Output$3.20

Workload$1.09

Context262K

Composer 2.5

Input$0.50

Output$2.50

Workload$1.00

Context200K

Workload = published cost of 1M input + 200K output tokens. Open the live leaderboard for interactive compare charts.

More Qwen3.8 27B and Composer 2.5 comparisons

Explore how Qwen3.8 27B and Composer 2.5 stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Opus 5 vs Composer 2.5 Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Fable 5 vs Composer 2.5 Grok 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 27B Grok 4.6 vs Composer 2.5 GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B GPT-5.6 Sol vs Composer 2.5 Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.8 27B Kimi K3 vs Composer 2.5

How to read this comparison

Benchmark scores

Higher is better for all benchmark scores (SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, etc.). Green marks the model with the higher score.

Token pricing

Lower is better for input and output prices. Green marks the cheaper model per 1M tokens.

Coverage matters

Models with fewer disclosed benchmark cells may have inflated percentile scores. Check the benchmark cell count for context.

This comparison page is generated from the AskClash LLM leaderboard cache. Open the live leaderboard for real-time scores and interactive filtering.