Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude 4 Sonnet
51
Composer 2
73
Pick Composer 2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+14.7 difference
Claude 4 Sonnet
Composer 2
$3 / $15
$0.5 / $2.5
40 t/s
N/A
1.33s
N/A
200K
200K
Pick Composer 2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Composer 2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 73 to 51. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2. That is roughly 6.0x on output cost alone. Composer 2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4 Sonnet 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.
Composer 2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 73 to 51.
Claude 4 Sonnet has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.7 versus 58. Composer 2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.