Cursor 用 1/60 的成本实现了接近顶级模型的编程代理性能，做自动化开发或频繁使用 AI 编程的团队可以直接省下大笔费用，建议试试 Fast 模式感受响应速度。
Cursor 发布了 Composer 2.5，这是其编程代理模型的最新版本。在 Artificial Analysis 编程代理指数中，Composer 2.5 以 62 分排名第三，仅次于 Claude Opus 4.7 和 GPT-5.5，但成本仅为它们的 1/10 到 1/60。标准版每次任务仅需 0.07 美元，Fast 版 0.44 美元，而竞品高达 4 美元以上。在 SWE-Bench-Pro-Hard-AA 上，Composer 2.5 得分 47%，与 Claude Opus 4.7 相当，比上一代提升 35 个百分点。Fast 模式平均 6.7 分钟完成任务，是第三快的编程代理。该模型基于 Kimi K2.5 继续训练，Cursor 贡献了约 85% 的计算量，仅在 Cursor IDE 和 CLI 中可用。
i wrote a guide on optimizing context usage 6 months ago that i never posted. back then with the mod...
i wrote a guide on optimizing context usage 6 months ago that i never posted. back then with the models available, you could only pick 2 of 3: 1. intelligent 2. fast 3. cheap intelligent + fast = expensive fast + cheap = dumb cheap + intelligent = slow now, with composer 2.5, this is no longer true and the post is obsolete. looking at TPS, avg cost per task, and score from cursorbench, it's clearly capable of all three but benchmarks are just benchmarks. what matters is how it feels to use and if it can actually accomplish your tasks. from the feedback so far, that's very much the case go try it out if you haven't already Artificial Analysis @ArtificialAnlys Cursor's new Composer 2.5 takes third on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index and is ~10-60x lower cost than the higher-effort Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 variants above it. This release puts Composer among the leading coding agent models, something that wasn’t clear for past releases @cursor_ai has released Composer 2.5, the latest model in its Composer line. Composer 2.5 scored 62 on our Coding Agent Index, a 14 point gain over Composer 2 (48). This puts it in third place of our tested agents, behind only Claude Opus 4.7 (max) in Claude Code (66) and GPT-5.5 (xhigh reasoning) in Codex (65). These cost $4.10 and $4.82 per task respectively, ~10x the cost of Composer 2.5 Fast ($0.44) and ~60x the cost of Composer 2.5 standard ($0.07). Key results for Composer 2.5 in Cursor CLI: ➤ Cost-quality Pareto frontier: At $0.07 (standard) and $0.44 (Fast) per task, Composer 2.5 is cheaper than every other agent scoring above 60 on the Index. Medium-effort peers cost $1.24–$2.21 per task; higher-effort variants land 3-4 points above at $4.10–$4.82 ➤ Per-benchmark gains vs Composer 2: +35 points on SWE-Bench-Pro-Hard-AA (12% → 47%), +2 points on Terminal-Bench v2 (64% → 66%), and +3 points on SWE-Atlas-QnA (69% → 72%). At 47%, Composer 2.5's score on SWE-Bench-Pro-Hard-AA is comparable to Claude Opus 4.7 (max) in Claude Code ➤ Among the fastest coding agents: Composer 2.5 Fast runs at an average wall time of 6.7 minutes per task, the third-fastest agent on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, behind only Claude Opus 4.7 (medium) in Claude Code (5.8m) and GPT-5.5 (medium) in Cursor CLI (6.2m) ➤ Fast mode enables better responsiveness at 6x pricing: Fast runs 30% faster than standard Composer 2.5, but is ~6x the cost per task ($0.44 vs $0.07). Token pricing is 6x higher for Fast: $3.00/$15.00 vs $0.50/$2.50 per million input/output tokens Model details: ➤ Base model: Continued training on @Kimi_Moonshot 's open weights Kimi K2.5 as with Composer 2, with Cursor reporting ~85% of total compute from its own additional training and reinforcement learning ➤ Pricing: $0.50/$2.50 per million input/output tokens for the standard variant; $3.00/$15.00 for the Fast variant (the default in Cursor) ➤ Available exclusively in Cursor: both Cursor IDE and Cursor CLI, an externally accessible API is not available Congratulations @cursor_ai and @mntruell on the impressive release! 🔗 View Quoted Tweet 💬 22 🔄 8 ❤️ 219 👀 17620 📊 46 ⚡