Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
83
Composer 2.5
82
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2.5 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+4.2 difference
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Composer 2.5
$3 / $15
$0.5 / $2.5
44 t/s
N/A
1.48s
N/A
200K
200K
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2.5 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 82. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 2.5. That is roughly 6.0x on output cost alone. Composer 2.5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 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.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 83 to 82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 59.1% and 69.3%.
Composer 2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.3 versus 65.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.