Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Composer 2 is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 62 to 53. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Composer 2's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 61.7 against 43.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 43.3% to 61.7%.
Composer 2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4.1 Opus is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Pick Composer 2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Claude 4.1 Opus
43.3
Composer 2
61.7
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Composer 2 is ahead overall, 62 to 53. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 43.3% and 61.7%.
Composer 2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.7 versus 43.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.