Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Composer 2.5
82
GPT-5.2
80
Pick Composer 2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.2 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 400K context window.
Agentic
+14.1 difference
Composer 2.5
GPT-5.2
$0.5 / $2.5
$1.75 / $14
N/A
73 t/s
N/A
130.34s
200K
400K
Pick Composer 2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.2 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 400K context window.
Composer 2.5 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 82 versus 80. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Composer 2.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 69.3 against 55.2.
GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2.5. That is roughly 5.6x on output cost alone. GPT-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 200K for Composer 2.5.
Composer 2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 82 to 80.
Composer 2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.3 versus 55.2. GPT-5.2 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.