LLM Reference

Composer 2.5 vs Grok 4 Heavy

Composer 2.5 (2026) and Grok 4 Heavy (2025) 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 Grok 4 Heavy ships a 256k-token context window. 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 Grok 4 Heavy when you need a model you can route, wrap, or run outside that product surface.

Decision scorecard

Local evidence first
SignalComposer 2.5Grok 4 Heavy
Product typeIDE-native agent built on Kimi K2.5Standalone API model
Best forLong Cursor IDE sessions and autonomous in-IDE codingAPI builders, multimodal apps, and non-IDE automation
Decision fitCoding, RAG, and AgentsCoding, Long context, and Vision
Context window1m256k
Cheapest output$2.50/1M tokens-
Provider routes1 tracked0 tracked
Shared benchmarks0 shared0 shared

Decision tradeoffs

Choose Composer 2.5 when...
  • Composer 2.5 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
  • Composer 2.5 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
  • Composer 2.5 uniquely exposes Function calling, Tool use, and Code execution in local model data.
  • Local decision data tags Composer 2.5 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
Choose Grok 4 Heavy when...
  • Grok 4 Heavy uniquely exposes Vision and Multimodal in local model data.
  • Local decision data tags Grok 4 Heavy for Coding, Long context, and Vision.

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

Grok 4 Heavy

Unavailable

No complete token price in local provider data

Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.

Switch friction

Composer 2.5 -> Grok 4 Heavy
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Composer 2.5 and Grok 4 Heavy; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Check replacement coverage for Function calling, Tool use, and Code execution before moving production traffic.
  • Grok 4 Heavy adds Vision and Multimodal in local capability data.
Grok 4 Heavy -> Composer 2.5
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Grok 4 Heavy and Composer 2.5; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Check replacement coverage for Vision and Multimodal before moving production traffic.
  • Composer 2.5 adds Function calling, Tool use, and Code execution in local capability data.

Specs

Specification
Released2026-05-182025-07-09
Context window1m256k
Parameters
Architecture--
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
OpennessProprietaryProprietary
WeightsNot releasedNot released
CodeNot releasedUnknown
Commercial useCommercial use: conditionalCommercial use: conditional
Knowledge cutoff-2024-11

Pricing and availability

Pricing attributeComposer 2.5Grok 4 Heavy
Input price
Standard async
$0.50/1M tokens
Cursor Composer 2.5 standard tier.
Fast interactive
$3/1M tokens
Cursor says fast has the same intelligence and is the default.
-
Output price
Standard async
$2.50/1M tokens
Cursor Composer 2.5 standard tier.
Fast interactive
$15/1M tokens
Cursor says fast has the same intelligence and is the default.
-
Providers-

Capabilities

CapabilityComposer 2.5Grok 4 Heavy
VisionNoYes
MultimodalNoYes
ReasoningNoNo
Function callingYesNo
Tool useYesNo
Structured outputsNoNo
Code executionYesNo
IDE integrationYesNo
Computer useNoNo
Parallel agentsYesNo

Benchmarks

No shared benchmark scores are currently available for this pair.

Deep dive

The capability footprint differs most on vision: Grok 4 Heavy, multimodal input: Grok 4 Heavy, function calling: Composer 2.5, tool use: Composer 2.5, and code execution: Composer 2.5. Both models share the core language-model surface, 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.

Pricing coverage is uneven: Composer 2.5 has $0.50/1M input tokens and Grok 4 Heavy has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 1 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.

Choose Composer 2.5 when coding workflow support, larger context windows, and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Grok 4 Heavy when vision-heavy evaluation are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency.

FAQ

Which has a larger context window, Composer 2.5 or Grok 4 Heavy?

Composer 2.5 supports 1m tokens, while Grok 4 Heavy supports 256k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.

Is Composer 2.5 or Grok 4 Heavy open source?

Composer 2.5 is listed under Proprietary. Grok 4 Heavy is listed under Proprietary. 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 vision, Composer 2.5 or Grok 4 Heavy?

Grok 4 Heavy has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Which is better for multimodal input, Composer 2.5 or Grok 4 Heavy?

Grok 4 Heavy has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input 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 Grok 4 Heavy?

Composer 2.5 has the clearer documented function calling signal in this comparison. If function calling is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Where can I run Composer 2.5 and Grok 4 Heavy?

Composer 2.5 is available on Cursor. Grok 4 Heavy is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.

Continue comparing

Last reviewed: 2026-06-30. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.