Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Composer 2 is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 62 to 58. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4 mini is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.75 input / $4.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2. GPT-5.4 mini gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 200K for Composer 2.
Pick Composer 2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 mini only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 400K context window.
Composer 2
61.7
GPT-5.4 mini
65.6
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Composer 2 is ahead overall, 62 to 58. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 61.7% and 60%.
GPT-5.4 mini has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.6 versus 61.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.