Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 66 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Composer 2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.5 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 Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Claude Opus 4.5
59.3
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.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
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.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead overall, 66 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 59.3% and 61.7%.
Composer 2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.7 versus 59.3. 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.