Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Composer 2
73
GPT-5.2
81
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+6.5 difference
Coding
+6.7 difference
Composer 2
GPT-5.2
$0.5 / $2.5
$1.75 / $14
N/A
73 t/s
N/A
130.34s
200K
400K
Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
GPT-5.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 81 to 73. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.2's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 64.7 against 58. Composer 2 does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
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. 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.
GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 81 to 73.
GPT-5.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 58. Composer 2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Composer 2 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.7 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.