Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Composer 2.5
Gemini 3.7 Flash was superseded by Gemini 3.8 Flash.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 3.7 Flash leads overall, D+ to D. The two cost about the same per task. By suite, real-world issues is even at C- and Composer 2.5 takes spec planning (D to D-). Take Composer 2.5 anyway when you want the side that is faster on real-world issues and ahead on spec planning.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 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash leads overall, D+ to D. By suite: real-world issues is even at C- (60% vs 57% capability); Composer 2.5 takes spec planning, D to D- (48% vs 40% capability); Gemini 3.7 Flash takes vibe coding, C- to F (61% vs 23% capability). Gemini 3.7 Flash used 9.4% of Google AI Pro's weekly limit per pass, $0.023 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 the two cost about the same ($0.023 vs $0.021). Composer 2.5 is faster on real-world issues: a median task takes 1m 34s against 2m 38s. Both finished every task on it. Reasons to pick Composer 2.5 anyway: it is faster on real-world issues (1m 34s vs 2m 38s median) and it leads on spec planning (D to D-).
Changed since the previous graded week: Gemini 3.7 Flash: real-world issues usage 8.5% to 8.2% of the weekly limit, spec planning D to D-, spec planning usage 1.3% to 1.2% of the weekly limit; Composer 2.5: real-world issues D+ to C-.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 60% | 57% | +3% (Gemini 3.7 Flash leads) |
| Median task time | 2m 38s | 1m 34s | 1m 4s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.025 / task | $0.021 / task | $0.004 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Gemini 3.7 Flash: 8.2% of Google AI Pro (49.1% / 5h, 8.2% / 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.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 40% | 48% | +8% (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Median task time | 1m 38s | 1m 8s | 30s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.014 / task | $0.022 / task | $0.009 / task lower (Gemini 3.7 Flash leads) |
Gemini 3.7 Flash: 1.2% of Google AI Pro (7.1% / 5h, 1.2% / 1w) per run. Its weekly limit holds 6 of the week's 33.6 5h windows. Composer 2.5: 0.4% of Cursor Pro (0.4% / 1m) per run. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
| Dimension | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Composer 2.5 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 61% | 23% | +39% (Gemini 3.7 Flash leads) |
| Median task time | 3m 37s | 1m 37s | 2m 1s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.028 / task | $0.022 / task | $0.006 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Gemini 3.7 Flash: 0.6% of Google AI Pro (3.6% / 5h, 0.6% / 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 3.7 Flash or Composer 2.5?
Gemini 3.7 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 2026-08-30.
Which is cheaper per task, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Composer 2.5?
Gemini 3.7 Flash used 9.4% of Google AI Pro's weekly limit per pass, $0.023 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 the two cost about the same ($0.023 vs $0.021).