composer-2.5 vs kimi-k3-256k
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.
| Dimension | composer-2.5 | kimi-k3-256k | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 57% | 57% | Even |
| Median task time | 1m 30s | 3m 3s | 1m 33s faster (composer-2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.023 / task | $0.018 / task | $0.006 / task lower (kimi-k3-256k leads) |
composer-2.5: 1.8% of Cursor Pro (1.8% / 1m) per run. kimi-k3-256k: 99.0% of Kimi Allegretto (99.0% / 5h, 20.0% / 1w) per run. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Work per window: composer-2.5 57 vs kimi-k3-256k 148 suite runs per month (kimi-k3-256k leads); per plan-dollar: 2.84 vs 3.78 (kimi-k3-256k leads). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike quota shares they are comparable across plans.
| Dimension | composer-2.5 | kimi-k3-256k | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 51% | 51% | +1% (kimi-k3-256k leads) |
| Median task time | 4m 30s | 5m 16s | 46s faster (composer-2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.029 / task | $0.034 / task | $0.005 / task lower (composer-2.5 leads) |
composer-2.5: 0.6% of Cursor Pro (0.6% / 1m) per run. kimi-k3-256k: 51.0% of Kimi Allegretto (51.0% / 5h, 10.0% / 1w) per run. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Work per window: composer-2.5 173 vs kimi-k3-256k 286 suite runs per month (kimi-k3-256k leads); per plan-dollar: 8.66 vs 7.35 (composer-2.5 leads). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike quota shares they are comparable across plans.
| Dimension | composer-2.5 | kimi-k3-256k | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 37% | 38% | +1% (kimi-k3-256k leads) |
| Median task time | 1m 51s | 6m 37s | 4m 46s faster (composer-2.5 leads) |
| Approx. task cost | $0.024 / task | $0.027 / task | $0.003 / task lower (composer-2.5 leads) |
composer-2.5: 0.1% of Cursor Pro (0.1% / 1m) per good solve. kimi-k3-256k: 10.2% of Kimi Allegretto (10.2% / 5h, 2.0% / 1w) per good solve. Each figure is a share of that agent's own plan, so there is no delta to draw.
Work per window: composer-2.5 822 vs kimi-k3-256k 1432 good solves per month (kimi-k3-256k leads); per plan-dollar: 41.11 vs 36.73 (composer-2.5 leads). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike quota shares they are comparable across plans.
Grades and deltas are comparable only within a suite version. See methodology.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better for coding, composer-2.5 or kimi-k3-256k?
They are even on our ladder: both clear tier 2 of 5 at 57% capability on real-world@v3, our private suite of real-world coding problems. Latest measurement 2026-08-16.
Which gives more work per dollar, composer-2.5 or kimi-k3-256k?
kimi-k3-256k delivers more benchmark work per subscription dollar: 3.78 suite runs per plan-dollar versus 2.84 for composer-2.5 (at $39/month priced 2026-07-20, and $20/month priced 2026-07-20). Work figures compare outputs, so unlike raw quota shares they are comparable across plans.
How much do composer-2.5 and kimi-k3-256k cost?
composer-2.5 runs on Cursor Pro at $20/month (public price as of 2026-07-20). kimi-k3-256k runs on Kimi Allegretto at $39/month (public price as of 2026-07-20).