Skip to main content

Model comparison

Composer 2 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

N/A
No comparison
60.66/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Composer 2 unranked (Not scored); DeepSeek V4 Pro #46 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Composer 2 and DeepSeek V4 Pro share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Composer 2; 20 to DeepSeek V4 Pro.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
3
Composer 2 only
2
DeepSeek V4 Pro only
20
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Composer 2 makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile; DeepSeek V4 Pro is the better fit if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 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 and DeepSeek V4 Pro finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Composer 2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro. That is roughly 2.9x on output cost alone. Composer 2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Pro 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. DeepSeek V4 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Composer 2.

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 scores and score margins for Composer 2 and DeepSeek V4 Pro
CategoryComposer 2ΔDeepSeek V4 Pro
CodingComposer 258.0Margin 7.3DeepSeek V4 Pro65.3
AgenticComposer 261.7Margin 2.6DeepSeek V4 Pro59.1
KnowledgeComposer 2Not measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro41.3
MathComposer 2Not measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro31.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Composer 2B · DeepSeek V4 Pro
  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 61.7%B 59.1%
    Winner: Composer 2Δ 2.6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Composer 2 scored 61.7%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 59.1%. Composer 2 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricComposer 2DeepSeek V4 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensComposer 2$0.5 input / $2.5 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro$0.435 input / $0.87 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondComposer 2Not availableDeepSeek V4 ProNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenComposer 2Not availableDeepSeek V4 ProNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensComposer 2200KDeepSeek V4 Pro1MDeepSeek V4 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticComposer 2 wins
BenchmarkComposer 2DeepSeek V4 ProResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 61.7%59.1%Composer 2 leads
MCP AtlasSource 69.4%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 46.3%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 50.28%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 17.1%Not comparable
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro wins
BenchmarkComposer 2DeepSeek V4 ProResult
SWE MultilingualSource 73.7%69.8%Composer 2 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 58%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 96.1%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 61.7%59.1%Composer 2 leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 52.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkComposer 2DeepSeek V4 ProResult
MRCR 1MSource 44.7%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 35.6%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkComposer 2DeepSeek V4 ProResult
MMLU-ProSource 82.9%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 45%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 75.8%Not comparable
GPQASource 72.9%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 72.9%Not comparable
HLESource 7.7%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkComposer 2DeepSeek V4 ProResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 31.7%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 35.3%Not comparable
ApexSource 0.4%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 9.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkComposer 2DeepSeek V4 ProResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1264Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Composer 2 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?

Composer 2 and DeepSeek V4 Pro are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for coding, Composer 2 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?

DeepSeek V4 Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 65.3 versus 58. Inside this category, SWE Multilingual is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?

Composer 2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.7 versus 59.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.