Composer 2.5 vs GLM-5.1
Composer 2.5 (2026) and GLM-5.1 (2026) compare an IDE-native agent built on Kimi K2.5 against a standalone API model. Composer 2.5 ships a 1m-token context window, while GLM-5.1 ships a 200k-token context window. On SWE-rebench, Composer 2.5 leads by 17.1 pts. On pricing, Composer 2.5 ranges from $0.50 to $3/1M input tokens by tier; GLM-5.1 costs $1.05/1M input tokens. This page treats the result as workflow and deployment fit, not a universal model winner.
Use Composer 2.5 when you want the packaged IDE-native agent built on Kimi K2.5 workflow; use GLM-5.1 when you need a model you can route, wrap, or run outside that product surface.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Composer 2.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Product type | IDE-native agent built on Kimi K2.5 | Standalone API model |
| Best for | Long Cursor IDE sessions and autonomous in-IDE coding | API builders, non-IDE automation, and provider-routed production |
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | Coding, RAG, and Agents |
| Context window | 1m | 200k |
| Cheapest output | $2.50/1M tokens | $3.50/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 1 tracked | 5 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | SWE-rebench leader | 2 shared |
Decision tradeoffs
- Composer 2.5 holds a shared-benchmark lead on SWE-rebench, ahead by 17.1 points.
- Composer 2.5 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Composer 2.5 has the lower cheapest tracked output price at $2.50/1M tokens.
- Composer 2.5 uniquely exposes IDE integration and Parallel agents in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Composer 2.5 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
- GLM-5.1 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- GLM-5.1 uniquely exposes Reasoning and Structured outputs in local model data.
- Local decision data tags GLM-5.1 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Composer 2.5
$1,025
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Cursor Standard async
GLM-5.1
$1,715
Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter
Estimated monthly gap: $690. Batch, cache, alternate speed tiers, and negotiated pricing are excluded from this local estimate.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Composer 2.5 and GLM-5.1; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- GLM-5.1 is $1/1M tokens higher on cheapest tracked output pricing, so quality gains need to justify the spend.
- Check replacement coverage for IDE integration and Parallel agents before moving production traffic.
- GLM-5.1 adds Reasoning and Structured outputs in local capability data.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for GLM-5.1 and Composer 2.5; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Composer 2.5 is $1/1M tokens lower on cheapest tracked output pricing before cache, batch, or negotiated discounts.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning and Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
- Composer 2.5 adds IDE integration and Parallel agents in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-05-18 | 2026-04-07 |
| Context window | 1m | 200k |
| Parameters | — | 754B total, 40B active |
| Architecture | - | Mixture of Experts |
| License | Proprietary | MITOSI-approved |
| Openness | Proprietary | Open source |
| Weights | Not released | Available |
| Code | Not released | Unknown |
| Commercial use | Commercial use: conditional | Commercial use: permitted |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | 2025-11 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Composer 2.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Input price |
| $1.05/1M tokens |
| Output price |
| $3.50/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Composer 2.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Function calling | Yes | Yes |
| Tool use | Yes | Yes |
| Structured outputs | No | Yes |
| Code execution | Yes | Yes |
| IDE integration | Yes | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | Yes | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-rebench | 79.8 | 62.7 |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 69.3 | 63.5 |
Harness caveat. Composer 2.5 is measured as IDE-native agent built on Kimi K2.5, while GLM-5.1 is standalone API model. Treat shared benchmark scores as directional because IDE or product scaffolding, tool access, prompt routing, and interaction mode can change real application results.
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, SWE-rebench has Composer 2.5 at 79.8 and GLM-5.1 at 62.7, with Composer 2.5 ahead by 17.1 points; Terminal-Bench 2.0 has Composer 2.5 at 69.3 and GLM-5.1 at 63.5, with Composer 2.5 ahead by 5.8 points. The largest visible gap is 17.1 points on SWE-rebench, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on reasoning mode: GLM-5.1 and structured outputs: GLM-5.1. Both models share function calling, tool use, and code execution, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
For cost, Composer 2.5 lists tiered pricing: Standard async is $0.50/1M input and $2.50/1M output; Fast interactive is $3/1M input and $15/1M output, while GLM-5.1 lists $1.05/1M input and $3.50/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Composer 2.5 lower by about $0.69 per million blended tokens. For tiered rows, this cheapest-track view can understate interactive or fast-lane spend, so compare the tier you will actually use. Availability is 1 providers versus 5, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Composer 2.5 when coding workflow support, larger context windows, and lower cheapest-tier input-token cost are central to the workload. Choose GLM-5.1 when coding workflow support and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Composer 2.5 or GLM-5.1?
Composer 2.5 supports 1m tokens, while GLM-5.1 supports 200k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is cheaper, Composer 2.5 or GLM-5.1?
Composer 2.5 lists tiered pricing: Standard async is $0.50/1M input and $2.50/1M output; Fast interactive is $3/1M input and $15/1M output. GLM-5.1 lists $1.05/1M input and $3.50/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. Compare the tier you will actually use; cheap async pricing can overstate savings for interactive workflows. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is Composer 2.5 or GLM-5.1 open source?
Composer 2.5 is listed under Proprietary. GLM-5.1 is listed under MIT. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for reasoning mode, Composer 2.5 or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 has the clearer documented reasoning mode signal in this comparison. If reasoning mode is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for function calling, Composer 2.5 or GLM-5.1?
Both Composer 2.5 and GLM-5.1 expose function calling. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Where can I run Composer 2.5 and GLM-5.1?
Composer 2.5 is available on Cursor. GLM-5.1 is available on Z.ai, OpenRouter, Fireworks AI, Vercel AI Gateway, and Novita AI. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Popular comparisons for Composer 2.5
Popular comparisons for GLM-5.1
Last reviewed: 2026-06-30. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.