Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Composer 2.5
82
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
88
Verified leaderboard positions: Composer 2.5 unranked · DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) #3
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2.5 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+4.7 difference
Composer 2.5
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
$0.5 / $2.5
$1.74 / $3.48
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200K
1M
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2.5 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 88 to 82. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)'s sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 74 against 69.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 69.3% to 67.9%.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.74 input / $3.48 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2.5. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Composer 2.5.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 88 to 82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 69.3% and 67.9%.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 74 versus 69.3. 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.