Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.6
- 73.0
- Composer 2
- 61.7
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Composer 2
Updated August 7, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Composer 2
Composer 2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Composer 2
Composer 2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
30 Claude Opus 4.6 only
3 Shared
2 Composer 2 only
- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 30
- Composer 2 only
- 2
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.6
- 68.1
- Composer 2
- 58.0
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- Not measured
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- 69.1
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 4 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- 36.3
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- Not measured
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- 77.3
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- Not measured
- Composer 2
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.6 | Composer 2 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 73.0 | 61.7 | Directional only3 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 68.1 | 58.0 | Directional only3 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 69.1 | Not measured | Not comparable4 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 36.3 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 77.3 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-Rebench
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.6
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Composer 2
- $0.00175
- Fits in one request
Composer 2 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.6
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Composer 2
- $0.0325
- Fits in one request
Composer 2 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.6
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Composer 2
- $0.135
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.6Composer 2
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.6
1M
Composer 2
200K
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Composer 2
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 4.6
Not published
Composer 2
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Composer 2
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Composer 2
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Composer 2
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.6
Non-Reasoning
Composer 2
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.6
Proprietary
Composer 2
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.6
Proprietary
Composer 2
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.6
2026-02-01
Composer 2
2026-03-19
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.0325. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.135.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence35 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.665.4%SourceComposer 261.7%SourceClaude Opus 4.6 leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.683.7%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.672.7%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.670.4%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 4.673.7%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.666.6%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.661.85%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 4.619.9%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.636.7%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.680.8%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified*
Claude Opus 4.675.6%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Claude Opus 4.670.7%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.653.4%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude Opus 4.665.3%SourceComposer 258%SourceClaude Opus 4.6 leads this result
React Native Evals
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.684.1%Composer 296.1%Composer 2 leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Opus 4.657.57%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 4.626.9%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.6—Composer 273.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.6—Composer 261.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.691.3%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.689.2%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.695%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.682%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Claude Opus 4.689.1%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.653%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.640%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Claude Opus 4.614.8%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Claude Opus 4.652.1%SourceComposer 2—Not directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Composer 2?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Composer 2?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Composer 2?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.6 or Composer 2?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.6 and $0.00175 on Composer 2; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.0325; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.135. Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.6 or Composer 2?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 7, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.6 vs Composer 2
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.