Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Composer 2.5
Gemini 3.6 Flash was superseded by Gemini 3.8 Flash. The grades below are the last ones measured, so read them as history rather than as this week's board. See the current roster.
Gemini 3.6 Flash leads overall, C to D. Composer 2.5 is about 1.8x cheaper per task. By suite, real-world issues is even at C- and Gemini 3.6 Flash takes vibe coding (C+ to F). Take Composer 2.5 anyway when you want the side that is cheaper per task and faster on real-world issues.Measured
Each agent graded on the same private suites, running headless through its own tools. Advantages are oriented so a win is a win, whichever way the metric runs.
Verdict: Composer 2.5 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
Gemini 3.6 Flash leads overall, C to D. By suite: real-world issues is even at C- (60% vs 57% capability); Gemini 3.6 Flash takes vibe coding, C+ to F (72% vs 23% capability). Only Composer 2.5 has run spec planning. Gemini 3.6 Flash used 12.6% of Google AI Pro's weekly limit per pass, $0.039 per task at the listed price. Composer 2.5 used 2.0% of Cursor Pro's monthly limit per pass, $0.021 per task at the listed price. Per task, Composer 2.5 is about 1.8x cheaper ($0.021 vs $0.039). Composer 2.5 is faster on real-world issues: a median task takes 1m 34s against 2m 17s. Both finished every task on it. Reasons to pick Composer 2.5 anyway: it is cheaper per task ($0.021 vs $0.039) and it is faster on real-world issues (1m 34s vs 2m 17s median).
Changed since the previous graded week: Gemini 3.6 Flash unchanged; Composer 2.5: real-world issues D+ to C-.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 60% | 57% | +3% (Gemini 3.6 Flash leads) |
| Median task time | 2m 17s | 1m 34s | 42s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.039 / task | $0.021 / task | $0.018 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Gemini 3.6 Flash: 12.6% of Google AI Pro (about 72.1% / 5h, 12.6% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds 6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Composer 2.5: 1.6% of Cursor Pro (1.6% / 1m) per run. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Only Composer 2.5 has run this suite, so there is no head-to-head yet.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 72% | 23% | +49% (Gemini 3.6 Flash leads) |
| Median task time | 1m 54s | 1m 37s | 17s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.038 / task | $0.022 / task | $0.016 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Gemini 3.6 Flash: 0.8% of Google AI Pro (4.9% / 5h, 0.8% / 1w) per good solve. Its weekly limit holds 6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Composer 2.5: 0.1% of Cursor Pro (0.1% / 1m) per good solve. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Grades and deltas are comparable only within a suite version. See methodology.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Composer 2.5?
Gemini 3.6 Flash clears higher: tier 4 of 5 versus tier 1 for Composer 2.5 on real-world@v3, our private suite of real-world coding problems. Latest measurement 2026-08-10.
Which is cheaper per task, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Composer 2.5?
Gemini 3.6 Flash used 12.6% of Google AI Pro's weekly limit per pass, $0.039 per task at the listed price. Composer 2.5 used 2.0% of Cursor Pro's monthly limit per pass, $0.021 per task at the listed price. Per task, Composer 2.5 is about 1.8x cheaper ($0.021 vs $0.039).