Model comparison
Composer 2.5 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Composer 2.5 unranked; Nemotron 3 Ultra #24
Evidence parity. Composer 2.5 and Nemotron 3 Ultra share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Composer 2.5; 36 to Nemotron 3 Ultra.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Composer 2.5 only
- 2
- Nemotron 3 Ultra only
- 36
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Composer 2.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron 3 Ultra only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Composer 2.5 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 63 versus 60. 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 51.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 69.3% to 56.4%.
Composer 2.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Nemotron 3 Ultra. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Nemotron 3 Ultra gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Composer 2.5.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Composer 2.5 | Δ | Nemotron 3 Ultra |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Composer 2.569.3 | Margin← 18.0 | Nemotron 3 Ultra51.3 |
| Coding | Composer 2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Ultra58.3 |
| Reasoning | Composer 2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Ultra61.9 |
| Knowledge | Composer 2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Ultra54.2 |
| Multilingual | Composer 2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Ultra83.0 |
| Inst. Following | Composer 2.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Ultra81.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 69.3%B 56.4%Winner: Composer 2.5Δ 12.9Terminal-Bench 2.0: Composer 2.5 scored 69.3%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 56.4%. Composer 2.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Composer 2.5 | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Composer 2.5$0.5 input / $2.5 output | Nemotron 3 Ultra$0 input / $0 output | Nemotron 3 Ultra has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Composer 2.5Not available | Nemotron 3 UltraNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Composer 2.5Not available | Nemotron 3 UltraNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Composer 2.5200K | Nemotron 3 Ultra1M | Nemotron 3 Ultra lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticComposer 2.5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.3% | 56.4% | Composer 2.5 leads |
| PinchBenchSource | — | 90.0% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 44.4% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 33.2% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 37.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 83.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1164 | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 870 | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 28.9% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 3.3% | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.3% | 56.4% | Composer 2.5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 79.8% | 67.7% | Composer 2.5 leads |
| cursorBench31Source | 63.2% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 56.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 71.9% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 44.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 49.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 36.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 39.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 87% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 26.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 26.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 21.6% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 37.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 86.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 26.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -0.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 28.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 83.3% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 83% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2.5 | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1132 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Composer 2.5 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?
Composer 2.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 63 to 60. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 69.3% and 56.4%.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2.5 or Nemotron 3 Ultra?
Composer 2.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.3 versus 51.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.