Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
o3 is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 68 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o3's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 69.2 against 61.7.
o3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $10.00 input / $40.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2. That is roughly 16.0x on output cost alone.
Pick o3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Composer 2
61.7
o3
69.2
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.
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.
o3 is ahead overall, 68 to 62.
o3 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.2 versus 61.7. Composer 2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.