Agentic
Not comparable- Composer 2
- 61.7
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Composer 2 vs GPT Realtime mini
Updated August 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Composer 2
Composer 2 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Composer 2
Composer 2 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. GPT Realtime mini does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GPT Realtime mini does not fit this workload in one request.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
5 Composer 2 only
- Shared results
- 0
- Composer 2 only
- 5
- GPT Realtime mini only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Composer 2
- 58.0
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Composer 2
- Not measured
- GPT Realtime mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Composer 2 | GPT Realtime mini | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 61.7 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 58.0 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Composer 2
- $0.00175
- Fits in one request
- GPT Realtime mini
- $0.0018
- Fits in one request
Composer 2 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Composer 2
- $0.0325
- Fits in one request
- GPT Realtime mini
- $0.0372
- Does not fit in one request
GPT Realtime mini does not fit this workload in one request.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Composer 2
- $0.135
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- GPT Realtime mini
- $0.048
- Does not fit in one request
Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. GPT Realtime mini does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationComposer 2GPT Realtime mini
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Composer 2
200K
GPT Realtime mini
API model ID
Composer 2
Not sourced
GPT Realtime mini
gpt-realtime-mini
OpenAI model documentationCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Composer 2
Not published
GPT Realtime mini
$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI model documentationDocumented inputs
Composer 2
Not sourced
GPT Realtime mini
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Composer 2
Not sourced
GPT Realtime mini
Not sourced
Provider availability
Composer 2
Not sourced
GPT Realtime mini
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Composer 2
Reasoning
GPT Realtime mini
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Composer 2
Proprietary
GPT Realtime mini
Proprietary
License
Composer 2
Proprietary
GPT Realtime mini
Proprietary
Release date
Composer 2
2026-03-19
GPT Realtime mini
Not sourced
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0325 vs $0.0372. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.135 vs $0.048.
- Context tradeoff
- Composer 2 has the larger documented window (200K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence5 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Composer 261.7%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE Multilingual
Composer 273.7%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Composer 258%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Composer 296.1%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Composer 261.7%SourceGPT Realtime mini—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Composer 2 or GPT Realtime mini?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Composer 2 or GPT Realtime mini?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2 or GPT Realtime mini?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Composer 2 or GPT Realtime mini?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00175 on Composer 2 and $0.0018 on GPT Realtime mini; repository review costs $0.0325 and $0.0372; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.135 and $0.048. Composer 2 does not fit this workload in one request. GPT Realtime mini does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Composer 2 or GPT Realtime mini?
Composer 2 has the larger documented context window: 200K, compared with 32K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 4, 2026
Watch Composer 2 vs GPT Realtime mini
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.