Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Composer 2
73
Grok Code Fast 1
40
Pick Composer 2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+12.8 difference
Composer 2
Grok Code Fast 1
$0.5 / $2.5
$0.2 / $1.5
N/A
172 t/s
N/A
2.81s
200K
256K
Pick Composer 2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Composer 2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 73 to 40. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Composer 2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok Code Fast 1. Composer 2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 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. Grok Code Fast 1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Composer 2.
Composer 2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 73 to 40.
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 58. Composer 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.