Composer 2.5 vs Grok 4.6
Grok 4.6 was superseded by Grok 4.7. The grades below are the last ones measured, so read them as history rather than as this week's board. See the current roster.
Grok 4.6 leads overall, C- to D. Composer 2.5 is about 7.4x cheaper per task. By suite, Composer 2.5 takes real-world issues (C- to D) and Grok 4.6 takes spec planning (C to D). Take Composer 2.5 anyway when you want the side that is cheaper per task, faster on real-world issues and ahead 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: Grok 4.6 vs Composer 2.5
Grok 4.6 leads overall, C- to D. By suite: Composer 2.5 takes real-world issues, C- to D (57% vs 47% capability); Grok 4.6 takes spec planning, C to D (66% vs 48% capability); Grok 4.6 takes vibe coding, C- to F (61% vs 23% capability). Composer 2.5 used 2.0% of Cursor Pro's monthly limit per pass, $0.021 per task at the listed price. Grok 4.6 used 13% of SuperGrok Plus's weekly limit per pass, $0.157 per task at the listed price. Per task, Composer 2.5 is about 7.4x cheaper ($0.021 vs $0.157). Composer 2.5 is faster on real-world issues: a median task takes 1m 34s against 7m 10s. Both finished every task on it. Reasons to pick Composer 2.5 anyway: it is cheaper per task ($0.021 vs $0.157), it is faster on real-world issues (1m 34s vs 7m 10s median) and it leads on real-world issues (C- to D).
Changed since the previous graded week: Composer 2.5: real-world issues D+ to C-; Grok 4.6: real-world issues C- to D, real-world issues usage 4% to 3% of the weekly limit, vibe coding C+ to C-.
| Dimension | Composer 2.5 | Grok 4.6 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 57% | 47% | +10% (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Median task time | 1m 34s | 7m 10s | 5m 36s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.021 / task | $0.046 / task | $0.025 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Composer 2.5: 1.6% of Cursor Pro (1.6% / 1m) per run. Grok 4.6: 3.0% of SuperGrok Plus (3.0% / 1w) per run. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
| Dimension | Composer 2.5 | Grok 4.6 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 48% | 66% | +18% (Grok 4.6 leads) |
| Median task time | 1m 8s | 45m 26s | 44m 18s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.022 / task | $0.575 / task | $0.553 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Composer 2.5: 0.4% of Cursor Pro (0.4% / 1m) per run. Grok 4.6: 10.0% of SuperGrok Plus (10.0% / 1w) per run. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
| Dimension | Composer 2.5 | Grok 4.6 | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 23% | 61% | +39% (Grok 4.6 leads) |
| Median task time | 1m 37s | 11m 14s | 9m 37s faster (Composer 2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.022 / task | <$0.230 / task | $0.208 / task lower (Composer 2.5 leads) |
Composer 2.5: 0.1% of Cursor Pro (0.1% / 1m) per good solve. Grok 4.6: under 1% of SuperGrok Plus 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, Composer 2.5 or Grok 4.6?
Grok 4.6 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 2026-09-27.
Which is cheaper per task, Composer 2.5 or Grok 4.6?
Composer 2.5 used 2.0% of Cursor Pro's monthly limit per pass, $0.021 per task at the listed price. Grok 4.6 used 13% of SuperGrok Plus's weekly limit per pass, $0.157 per task at the listed price. Per task, Composer 2.5 is about 7.4x cheaper ($0.021 vs $0.157).
What do Composer 2.5 and Grok 4.6 cost a month?
Composer 2.5 runs on Cursor Pro at $20/month (public price as of 2026-07-20). Grok 4.6 runs on SuperGrok Plus at $100/month (public price as of 2026-09-14).