Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Composer 2.5
77
Sakana Fugu Ultra
100
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2.5 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+12.8 difference
Composer 2.5
Sakana Fugu Ultra
$0.5 / $2.5
$5 / $30
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200K
1M
Pick Sakana Fugu Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2.5 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 100 to 77. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Sakana Fugu Ultra's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 82.1 against 69.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 69.3% to 82.1%.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2.5. That is roughly 12.0x on output cost alone. Sakana Fugu Ultra gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Composer 2.5.
Sakana Fugu Ultra is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 100 to 77. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 69.3% and 82.1%.
Sakana Fugu Ultra has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.1 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.