Speed
53tokens a second
Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at reasoning off.
- First token
- 1.0 s
- Whole answer
- 23 s
Claude Opus model by Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.5
An earlier Claude Opus release, still available on the Claude API.
Where it sits in Anthropic's lineup
- Claude HaikuAnthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.Claude Haiku 5.5
- Claude SonnetAnthropic's balanced Claude model family.Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Claude OpusAnthropic's high-capability Claude model family.You are on Claude Opus 4.5. Current:Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude FableAnthropic's Claude family for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.Claude Fable 5.1
Strengths and weaknesses
Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Claude Opus 4.5
- Claude Opus 4.5
Suggested comparisons
The models a buyer weighs against Claude Opus 4.5, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Claude Opus 4.5.
Claude Opus 4.5
Ranked against the 40 current releases on this chart, Claude Opus 4.5 ranks 11th of 31 on Factuality. It ranks lowest on Math, 29th of 29 and Science, 24th of 25. Agentic coding, Code, Tool use and Computer use: not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026.
Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero.
On the chart
- Claude Opus 4.5This pageResults on 8 of 12 axes$5 / $2559 tokens/sFirst token in 15 s
Prices and speeds read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
Claude Opus 4.5 on each axis8 of 12 with a result
The share of Terminal-Bench 4.0's long terminal tasks the model finishes on its own: services, kernels, proofs and data pipelines, graded on the final artifact with no partial credit.
Terminal-Bench 4.0, pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness
- Claude Opus 4.5Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of SciCode's scientific programming subproblems the model's code solves on the first attempt.
SciCode, subproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Opus 4.5Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of FrontierMath's held-out research-grade problems (tiers 1 to 3) the model answers correctly.
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Opus 4.534.4%Epoch AI's run with a 32K-token thinking budget.
The share of GPQA Diamond's graduate-level biology, chemistry and physics questions the model answers correctly.
GPQA Diamond, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Opus 4.586%Epoch AI's run with a 32K-token thinking budget. With thinking off it scores 80.7%.
The share of Humanity's Last Exam's 2,158 text-only questions, expert-written at the edge of human knowledge, the model answers correctly without tools.
Humanity's Last Exam, accuracy, text-only questions, no tools
- Claude Opus 4.530.1%
The share of each AutomationBench task's objectives the model completes by calling REST APIs across simulated business apps (Gmail, Sheets, Slack, Salesforce, Zendesk, Jira, HubSpot), averaged over tasks. A task that breaks one of its policy guardrails scores zero.
AutomationBench-AA, score, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Opus 4.5Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
How much of each OSWorld 2.1 workflow the model completes by operating a real Ubuntu desktop through screenshots, mouse and keyboard: all 108 long tasks across apps, files, mail and browsers, on the September 2026 v2.1 release of the task files. A point is the mean share of each task's weighted checks the model passes (the partial score, as a percentage). The OSWorld team's own runs come first. Where the team has not run a release, the point is another lab's run or the maker's own published figure, marked with who ran it and the benchmark it ran: OSWorld 2.1 in the maker's harness, OSWorld 2.0's offline set or the earlier OSWorld-Verified. Those points are drawn so the release has a figure, and they are not ranked against the team's runs.
OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release
- Claude Opus 4.5Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of AA-LCR's questions the model answers correctly by reasoning across long sets of real documents, about 100K tokens each.
AA-LCR v1.1, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Opus 4.577.3%
The share of MMMU-Pro's college-level questions over charts, diagrams and photos the model answers correctly.
MMMU-Pro, overall accuracy, no tools
- Claude Opus 4.574%
The share of AA-Omniscience's 6,000 knowledge questions across 42 economically relevant topics the model answers correctly from memory, without search.
AA-Omniscience Accuracy, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Opus 4.546.6%Hallucination rate 61% in the same run (lower is better)
The share of SpeechMap's 2,120 sensitive and controversial but legal requests the model answers in full: arguments, essays and explanations on contested themes in politics, religion, race, sex, history and similar topics, four wordings per theme across 530 themes. SpeechMap's judge rates each response complete, evasive (hedged or redirected), a denial, or an error (the provider's API blocked the request). Only complete answers count, so the point is the share answered in full: 100 minus the share hedged, refused or blocked by the provider. Higher means more lawful requests answered in full. The share blocked at the provider is printed apart in the table, because an API error is not the model declining. Where SpeechMap runs a release both with reasoning off and with reasoning on (a -reasoning or -thinking entry), the reasoning-on entry is used; a release with one entry uses that entry.
SpeechMap, % Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry
- Claude Opus 4.557.5%With extended thinking on, SpeechMap counted 29.1% of requests denied and 13.3% evaded. With it off, the model completes 50.8%.0.1% of requests failed at the provider and count against it
The share of MultiChallenge's multi-turn conversations in which the model keeps every instruction it was given earlier in the conversation.
MultiChallenge, accuracy, Scale AI run
- Claude Opus 4.559%On Oct 28, 2026, Scale AI ranked it 18th, with extended thinking on.Plus or minus 0.42 points (95% interval)
Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Claude Opus 4.5, with where each figure sits among the 41 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.
Capacity
200Ktokens
Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.
- Reads
- Text, Images
Quality
23.7of 100
Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at reasoning off.
- Epoch Capabilities Index
- 150
Hallucination
61.0%wrong when it should say “I don’t know”
Hallucination rate. Of the questions it can't get right, how often it answers anyway. Lower is better. Run at reasoning on.
- Knowledge accuracy
- 46.6%
Where you can get it
13of 19 routes
Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.
- Open weights
- No
- Licence
- Commercial Terms of Service
Figures from Artificial Analysis, Epoch AI, GILD's route matrix and Anthropic, read Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for Claude Opus 4.5: Cost per task, Cached input, Max output, GDPval knowledge work and Terminal-Bench 4.0.
Every value with its benchmark, run and source
| Axis | Benchmark and setting | Claude Opus 4.5 | Run | Source | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic coding | Terminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness | Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Code | SciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Math | FrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run. Epoch AI's run with a 32K-token thinking budget. | 34.4% | Effort: 32K thinking budget. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Nov 24, 2025 |
| Science | GPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run. Epoch AI's run with a 32K-token thinking budget. With thinking off it scores 80.7%. | 86% | Effort: 32K thinking budget. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Nov 24, 2025 |
| Hard reasoning | Humanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools | 30.1% | Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning)Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Tool use | AutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run | Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Computer use | OSWorld 2.1Partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release | Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Long context | AA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 77.3% | Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning)Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Multimodal | MMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools | 74% | Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning)Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Factuality | AA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 46.6%Hallucination rate 61% in the same run (lower is better) | Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning)Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Answers in full | SpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. With extended thinking on, SpeechMap counted 29.1% of requests denied and 13.3% evaded. With it off, the model completes 50.8%. | 57.5%0.1% of requests failed at the provider and count against it | Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | SpeechMap.AI | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Instruction following | MultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI run. On Oct 28, 2026, Scale AI ranked it 18th, with extended thinking on. | 59%Plus or minus 0.42 points (95% interval) | Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | Scale AI SEAL | Oct 28, 2026 |
Price and speed
- Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. Anthropic pricing, Oct 26, 2026.
- Claude Opus 4.5 writes 58.8 output tokens per second on Anthropic's API, and its first token arrives 15 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026.
- Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.
Every model with a result, axis by axis
57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.
| Model | Agentic coding | Code | Math | Science | Hard reasoning | Tool use | Computer use | Long context | Multimodal | Factuality | Answers in full | Instructions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 34.4% | 86% | 30.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 77.3% | 74% | 46.6% | 57.5% | 59% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | 36.4% | 55% | 75.1% | 89.6% | 44.4% | 35.4% | 72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | Not yet published | 34.7% | 78.8% | 67.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 64.1% | 61% | 88.8% | 95.6% | 55% | 71.8% | 80.1%Reported by Anthropic | 82.7% | Not yet published | 51.5% | 81.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 65.2% | 66.9% | 91.2% | 90.6% | 61.4% | 69.5% | 81.8%Reported by Anthropic | 84.7% | 87.7% | 65.5% | 82.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5.1 | 58.1% | 63.1% | 90.2% | 93.4%Run by Vals.ai | 59.1% | 59.4% | 80.7%Reported by Anthropic | 85.3% | 86.3%Run by Moonshot AI | 68.4% | 72.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5 | 53.5% | 56.4% | 85.6% | 93.9% | 54.9% | 56.6% | 77.7% | 79.3% | 84.7% | 60.9% | 73.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 10.6% | 54.3% | 65.6% | 80.3% | 41.3% | 36.5% | 57%Reported by Anthropic | 82% | 77.3% | 40.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5 | 41.4% | 61% | 87% | 85.9% | 55.5% | 54.1% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 65.4% | 64.8% | 63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 23.2% | 54.4% | 80% | 91% | 48.7% | 45.6% | 54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 77.7% | Not yet published | 48.8% | 67.4% | 62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Not yet published | 54.5% | 70.2% | 86.4% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 78.7% | 78.8% | 48.9% | 70.2% | 58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 3%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 50.1% | 71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 78.8% | 33.6% | 20.1% | 41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 73.3% | 40.9% | 35.8% | 56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 66% | 88.4% | 39.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78% | 75.4% | 47% | 59.9% | 37.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | Not yet published | 42.2% | 66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.2% | 10.4% | 3.2% | Not yet published | 74.3% | 58.6% | 18% | 24.7% | 50.5% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Not yet published | 45.7% | 23.9% | 82.3% | 17.8% | 14.1% | Not yet published | 72.3% | 68.7% | 32.9% | 31.4% | 55.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Terra | 49.5% | 55.1% | 90.9% | 94.3% | 46.2% | 60.2% | 74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 84.7% | 47.6% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 55.1% | 54.2% | 93.7% | 95.4% | 52.9% | 64.9% | 78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 83% | 86% | 61.8% | 69.5% | 82% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | 13.6% | 54.6% | 78.9% | 90.5% | 38.5% | 53.2% | 48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 83.3% | 79.7% | 39.6% | 63.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Astra | 59.6% | 56.5% | 93.7% | 95.8% | 54.7% | 68.5% | 75.8%Run by Meta | 80.7% | 86.9% | 61.6% | 68.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 37.9% | 57.1% | 89.1% | 93.5% | 49.5% | 60.1% | 62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84% | 83.4% | 69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Terra | 22.7% | 55% | 86% | 93.3% | 42.9% | 59.6% | Not yet published | 83% | 80.7% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 11.6% | 53.6% | 82.1% | 91.6% | 39.5% | 50.2% | Not yet published | 83.7% | 78.6% | 41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.5 | 14.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 55.8% | 85.3% | 93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 45.8% | 47.3% | 49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84.3% | 79.9% | 63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.4 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78.6% | 93.3% | 43.7% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 82% | 78.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| gpt-oss-120b | 14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 34% | 88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 75.8% | 19.6% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 52% | Not yet published | 16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA | 36.3% | 45.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Sol | 44.4% | 57.6% | 89.8% | 94.3% | 47.9% | 61.6% | 64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.0 | 83.7% | 82.9% | 54.5% | 64% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.3-Codex | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 42.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 83.3% | 78.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 4 Argon | 57.6% | 61.8% | 86% | 96.4% | 57.1% | 77.5% | 69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | Not yet published | 48.3% | 87% | 78.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | 19.7% | 56.6% | 68.4% | 95.4% | 47.8% | 59.9% | 59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 81.3% | 85.6% | 50.5% | 86.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemma 4 31B | Not yet published | 45.5% | Not yet published | 85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 23.6% | 4.9% | Not yet published | 69.7% | 73.4% | 10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 82.3% | 75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | 2.5% | 58.7% | 59.6% | 94.4% | 47% | 35.4% | Not yet published | 82% | 82.4% | 54.9% | 59.9% | 71.4% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 53.4% | 58.9% | 94.1% | 40.8% | 53% | 83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified | 80% | 83.2% | 66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 87.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | 31.8% | 55.9% | 71.2% | 93.2% | 43.3% | 66.6% | 69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 80.6% | 39.6% | Not yet published | 74.9% |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 14.1% | 51% | 64.6% | 91.7% | 41% | 56.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 45.2% | 72% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | 63.6% | 60.8% | Not yet published | 94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI | 52.5% | 73.3% | 79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 86.3% | 83.9% | 48.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3 | 17.2% | 59.5% | 72.2% | 93.1% | 46.9% | 58.3% | Not yet published | 88.7% | 80.5% | 50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 65.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K2.7 Code | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 47.8% | 54% | 87.9% | 35% | 24.5% | Not yet published | 79.3% | Not yet published | 36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Large 4 | 24.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 57.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 26% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Medium 3.5 | 0%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 40.2% | Not yet published | 74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 13.8% | 6.3% | Not yet published | 69.3% | 64.9% | 23% | 70.5% | 68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.7 | 28.8% | 57.4% | 53% | 92.7% | 43.1% | 65.6% | Not yet published | 76.7% | Not yet published | 42.7% | 64.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.6 | 17.2% | 56.5% | 66% | 93.2% | 42.9% | 66.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 83.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.5 | 8.6% | 55% | 57.2% | 93.4% | 42.7% | 57.9% | Not yet published | 79.3% | 80.4% | 48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 93.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiniMax M3.1 Flash | 25.3% | 53.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 48% | 72.5% | 61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | 79.1% | 45.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mercury 3 | 3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | 37.4% | 51.6% | 55.8% | 90.2% | 39.9% | 60.4% | 59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro | 28.2% | 65.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.3 | 38.9% | 59% | 68.8% | 90.9% | 42.3% | 62.2% | Not yet published | 79.7% | Not yet published | 32.3% | 71.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.2 | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 51.2% | 59.2% | Not yet published | 41.1% | 28.4% | Not yet published | 78.3% | Not yet published | 34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark Open | 6.6% | 58.4% | 69.8% | 88.6% | 43.9% | 49.7% | 80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified | 78.3% | 80.9% | 42% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Wonder | 49.5% | 60.3% | 82.1% | Not yet published | 50.1% | 68.1% | 72.6%Reported by Meta | 80.7% | Not yet published | 38% | 42.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark 1.3 | 10.6% | 58.8% | 74% | 93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 48.7% | 57.9% | 69.6% | 83% | 82% | 38% | 25.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Scout | Not yet published | 21.3% | 7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 51.8% | 3.8% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 27.7% | 52.9% | Not yet published | 70.1% | 39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | Not yet published | 31.7% | 20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 67% | 4.9% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 50% | 62.1% | Not yet published | 58.3% | 43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 27B | 5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 46.6% | Not yet published | 90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 33.9% | 48.2% | 84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified | 82% | 76.3% | 17.3% | Not yet published | 79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 Max | 38.9% | 52.1% | 65.6% | 92.3% | 43.1% | 56.2% | Not yet published | 80.3% | 82.8% | 29.5% | 65.3% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 31.3% | 60.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 49.4% | 58.6% | 82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 86.3% | Not yet published | 34.8% | 66.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | 24.2% | 51.3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 35.1% | 64.1% | 80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 74.3% | 73.1% | 27.2% | 66.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 56.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 43.5% | 67.5% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 26.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Step 5 Preview | 31.8% | 58.9% | Not yet published | 93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond | 46.5% | 51% | Not yet published | 88.3% | 76.4% | 36.4% | 59.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Opus 5.565.2%
- Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
- GPT-6 Astra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.158.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
- Claude Opus 553.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
- Muse Wonder49.5%
- GPT-6 Sol44.4%
- Claude Fable 541.4%
- GLM-5.338.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
- Step 5 Preview31.8%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
- Grok 4.728.8%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
- Claude Opus 4.823.2%
- GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
- Kimi K317.2%
- Grok 4.617.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
- GPT-6 Luna13.6%
- GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
- Claude Sonnet 510.6%
- Muse Spark 1.310.6%
- Grok 4.58.6%
- Muse Spark Open6.6%
- Mercury 33%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
- Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
- Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.
CodeSciCode
- Claude Opus 5.566.9%
- Claude Fable 5.163.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.561%
- Claude Fable 561%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
- Muse Wonder60.3%
- Kimi K359.5%
- GLM-5.359%
- Step 5 Preview58.9%
- Muse Spark 1.358.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
- Muse Spark Open58.4%
- GPT-6 Sol57.6%
- Grok 4.757.4%
- GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
- GPT-6 Astra56.5%
- Grok 4.656.5%
- Claude Opus 556.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
- GPT-5.555.8%
- GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
- Claude Haiku 5.555%
- GPT-5.6 Terra55%
- Grok 4.555%
- GPT-6 Luna54.6%
- Claude Opus 4.754.5%
- Claude Opus 4.854.4%
- Claude Sonnet 554.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
- GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
- GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
- GLM-5.251.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
- Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
- Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
- Gemma 4 31B45.5%
- Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
- Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
- gpt-oss-120b34%
- Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
- Llama 4 Scout21.3%
The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3
- GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
- GPT-6 Astra93.7%
- Claude Opus 5.591.2%
- GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
- Claude Fable 5.190.2%
- GPT-6 Sol89.8%
- GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
- Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
- Claude Fable 587%
- GPT-5.6 Terra86%
- Gemini 4 Argon86%
- Claude Opus 585.6%
- GPT-5.585.3%
- GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
- Muse Wonder82.1%
- Claude Opus 4.880%
- GPT-6 Luna78.9%
- GPT-5.478.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
- Muse Spark 1.374%
- Kimi K372.2%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Muse Spark Open69.8%
- GLM-5.368.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
- Claude Opus 4.666%
- Grok 4.666%
- Claude Sonnet 565.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
- GLM-5.259.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
- Grok 4.557.2%
- GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
- Kimi K2.7 Code54%
- Grok 4.753%
- Claude Opus 4.534.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
- gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.
ScienceGPQA Diamond
- Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
- GPT-6 Astra95.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
- GPT-6 Sol94.3%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
- Claude Opus 593.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
- Grok 4.593.4%
- GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
- GPT-5.493.3%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
- Grok 4.693.2%
- Kimi K393.1%
- Grok 4.792.7%
- Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
- GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
- Claude Opus 4.891%
- GLM-5.390.9%
- Claude Opus 5.590.6%
- GPT-6 Luna90.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
- Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
- Muse Spark Open88.6%
- Claude Opus 4.688.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
- Claude Opus 4.786.4%
- Claude Opus 4.586%
- Claude Fable 585.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
- Claude Sonnet 580.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
- gpt-oss-120b75.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick67%
- Llama 4 Scout51.8%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
- GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
- Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
- GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam
- Claude Opus 5.561.4%
- Claude Fable 5.159.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
- Claude Fable 555.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.555%
- Claude Opus 554.9%
- GPT-6 Astra54.7%
- GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
- Muse Wonder50.1%
- GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
- Claude Opus 4.848.7%
- Muse Spark 1.348.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
- GPT-6 Sol47.9%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
- Kimi K346.9%
- Step 5 Preview46.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
- GPT-5.545.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
- Muse Spark Open43.9%
- GPT-5.443.7%
- Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
- Grok 4.743.1%
- Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
- Grok 4.642.9%
- Grok 4.542.7%
- GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
- Claude Opus 4.742.3%
- GLM-5.342.3%
- Claude Sonnet 541.3%
- GLM-5.241.1%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
- Claude Opus 4.639.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
- GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
- GPT-6 Luna38.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code35%
- Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
- Claude Opus 4.530.1%
- Gemma 4 31B23.6%
- gpt-oss-120b19.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
- Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
- Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
- Llama 4 Scout3.8%
The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.
Tool useAutomationBench-AA
- Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
- Claude Opus 5.569.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.5%
- Muse Wonder68.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
- Grok 4.666.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
- Grok 4.765.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
- GLM-5.362.2%
- GPT-6 Sol61.6%
- GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
- GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.159.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
- Kimi K358.3%
- Grok 4.557.9%
- Muse Spark 1.357.9%
- Mistral Large 457.8%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
- Claude Opus 556.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
- Claude Fable 554.1%
- GPT-6 Luna53.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
- Step 5 Preview51%
- GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
- Muse Spark Open49.7%
- Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
- GPT-5.547.3%
- Claude Opus 4.845.6%
- Claude Sonnet 536.5%
- Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
- GLM-5.228.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
- Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
- Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
- Gemma 4 31B4.9%
- Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
- gpt-oss-120b0.2%
- Llama 4 Scout0.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick0.2%
The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.
Computer useOSWorld 2.1
- Claude Opus 577.7%
- Muse Spark 1.369.6%
- Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
- Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
- Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
- Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
- Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1
- Kimi K388.7%
- Step 5 Preview88.3%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
- Claude Fable 5.185.3%
- Claude Opus 5.584.7%
- GPT-5.584.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol84%
- GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
- GPT-6 Sol83.7%
- GPT-6 Luna83.3%
- GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol83%
- GPT-5.6 Terra83%
- Muse Spark 1.383%
- Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
- Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
- Claude Fable 582.3%
- Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 582%
- GPT-5.482%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
- Qwen3.8 27B82%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
- GPT-6 Astra80.7%
- Muse Wonder80.7%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
- Grok 4.680.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.680%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
- GLM-5.3-Flash80%
- Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
- GLM-5.379.7%
- Claude Opus 579.3%
- Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
- Grok 4.579.3%
- Claude Opus 4.778.7%
- GLM-5.278.3%
- Muse Spark Open78.3%
- Claude Opus 4.678%
- Claude Opus 4.877.7%
- Claude Opus 4.577.3%
- Grok 4.776.7%
- Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
- Gemma 4 31B69.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
- gpt-oss-120b52%
- Llama 4 Maverick50%
- Llama 4 Scout27.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.
MultimodalMMMU-Pro
- Claude Opus 5.587.7%
- GPT-6 Astra86.9%
- GPT-6.1 Sol86%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
- Claude Opus 584.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
- GPT-6 Sol82.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
- Muse Spark 1.382%
- Muse Spark Open80.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
- Kimi K380.5%
- Grok 4.580.4%
- GPT-5.579.9%
- GPT-6 Luna79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
- Claude Opus 4.778.8%
- GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
- GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
- GPT-5.478.4%
- Claude Sonnet 577.3%
- Step 5 Preview76.4%
- Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
- Claude Opus 4.675.4%
- Claude Opus 4.574%
- Gemma 4 31B73.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
- Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
- Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
- Llama 4 Scout52.9%
- Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
- GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro
The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.
FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy
- Claude Fable 5.168.4%
- Claude Opus 5.565.5%
- Claude Fable 565.4%
- GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
- GPT-6 Astra61.6%
- Claude Opus 560.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
- GPT-6 Sol54.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
- Claude Opus 4.848.8%
- Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
- GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
- Claude Opus 4.647%
- Claude Opus 4.546.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
- Grok 4.742.7%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
- Muse Spark Open42%
- Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
- Claude Sonnet 540.1%
- GPT-6 Luna39.6%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
- Muse Wonder38%
- Muse Spark 1.338%
- Step 5 Preview36.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
- Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
- GLM-5.332.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
- Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
- Mistral Large 426%
- Mistral Medium 3.523%
- Claude Haiku 4.518%
- Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
- Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.
Answers in fullSpeechMap
- Grok 4.593.1%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
- Gemini 4 Argon87%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
- Grok 4.683.6%
- Claude Opus 5.582.8%
- Gemma 4 31B82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
- Claude Opus 573.7%
- Claude Fable 5.172.4%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
- GLM-5.371.5%
- Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Llama 4 Scout70.1%
- GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.2%
- Claude Opus 4.867.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
- Kimi K365.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
- Claude Fable 564.8%
- Grok 4.764.1%
- GPT-6 Sol64%
- GPT-6 Luna63.4%
- Claude Opus 4.659.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
- Step 5 Preview59.7%
- Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
- Claude Opus 4.557.5%
- Muse Wonder42.7%
- gpt-oss-120b36.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
- Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
- Muse Spark 1.325.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.524.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.
Instruction followingMultiChallenge
- GPT-6.1 Sol82%
- Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
- Muse Spark Open74.2%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
- Claude Opus 4.559%
- Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
- Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
- gpt-oss-120b45.3%
- Claude Opus 4.637.2%
- Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
- GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.
Every measure on record
Cost, speed, reliability, knowledge-work and domain results for Claude Opus 4.5 beyond the twelve chart axes, each with the run it comes from and its publisher. These stay separate measures; none is folded into the chart.
| Measure | Claude Opus 4.5 | Run | Source | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specs and access | ||||
| Context windowThe most tokens one request can hold, as the maker states it. Size alone says nothing about how well the model uses a long input; the Long context axis measures that. | 200K | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 | |
| ReadsThe kinds of input the model accepts. | Text, Images | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 | |
| LicenceThe terms the weights or the service are offered under. | Commercial Terms of Service | Anthropic | Nov 1, 2026 | |
| Open weightsWhether the maker publishes the weights for anyone to run. | No | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 | |
| Routes offering itOf the 19 clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, how many offer the release today, preview included. | 13 of 19 | GILD route matrix | Oct 28, 2026 | |
| Speed | ||||
| End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt. | 23 s | Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs. | 14 s | Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. | 53 tokens/s | Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Time to first tokenLower is better. Median seconds to the first streamed chunk on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. Reasoning models spend this time thinking. | 1.0 s | Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Reliability | ||||
| Hallucination rateLower is better. AA-Omniscience hallucination rate shows how often the model answers wrongly when it does not know and should decline. | 61% | Reasoning on | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly. | 46.6% | Reasoning on | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100. | 14 | Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| SimpleQA Verified (Epoch)Share of SimpleQA Verified factual questions answered correctly, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. A second factuality source beside AA-Omniscience. | 45.7% | 32K thinking tokens | Epoch AI | Aug 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge work | ||||
| Vending-Bench 2Vending-Bench 2 final balance of a simulated vending business run by the model, as Epoch AI republishes it. | $4,967 | Andon Labs (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| Capability beyond the chart | ||||
| AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy. | 70.7% | Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 1,025 | 16K thinking tokens | Sakana AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| ARC-AGI-2ARC-AGI-2 score from the ARC Prize maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 7.8% | ARC Prize Foundation (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 5% | Epoch AI | Oct 13, 2026 | |
| CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run. | 4.6% | Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 89.9% | High effort | Redwood Research (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch Capabilities Index: Epoch AI's composite across its benchmark hub, with its confidence interval. | 150 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Epoch AI | Oct 26, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tier 4 research math problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 4.9% | 32K thinking tokens | Epoch AI | Jun 11, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 34.4% | 32K thinking tokens | Epoch AI | Jun 11, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA run)GPQA Diamond accuracy in AA's run. | 81.0% | Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. | 85.5% | 16K thinking tokens | Epoch AI | Nov 25, 2025 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run. | 13.2% | Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| IFBench (AA run)Instruction-following accuracy on IFBench in AA's run. | 58.0% | Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points. | 23.7 | Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| LMCALMCA score, 0 to 100, as Epoch AI republishes it. Its interval is printed only as a half-width, so it is not drawn. | 44.5 | High effort | Redwood Research (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| METR time horizonMETR 50% time horizon in minutes of human work, with METR's interval, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 4.9 h | METR (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| MMMU-Pro (AA run)Multimodal understanding accuracy on MMMU-Pro in AA's run. | 74.0% | Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 22% | 48K thinking tokens | Epoch AI | Jul 25, 2026 |
| OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch)Share of OTIS Mock AIME 2024 to 2025 problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 48.1% | Epoch AI | Nov 24, 2025 | |
| ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it. | 36% | Vals AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| tau2-Bench (AA run)AA's tau2-Bench tool-use score. | 89.5% | Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| WebDev ArenaWebDev Arena score from human pairwise votes on web builds, with its 95% interval, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 1,468 | LMArena (via Epoch AI) | Jan 5, 2026 | |
| WeirdML v3, best runWeirdML v3 maximum performance across runs, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 7.1% | High effort | Håvard Tveit Ihle (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
Routes, prices and uptime
Where Claude Opus 4.5 is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.
Where it is offered
13 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer Claude Opus 4.5 today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon Bedrock | Available | anthropic.claude-opus-4-5-20251101-v1:0 | us./eu./global. profiles; no bedrock-mantle; Active, EOL not sooner than Nov 24, 2026; tiers: Standard and Reserved; context / output 200K / 64K | Amazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Claude Opus 4.5 |
| Claude Code | Available | claude-opus-4-5-20251101 | By full model name on the Anthropic API, or provider ARN, version or deployment name; aliases resolve per provider; the model configuration page, read Oct 28, 2026, does not name Opus 4.5 | Anthropic |
| Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) | Available | claude-opus-4-5-20251101 | Claude API model IDs (dated IDs use a hyphen) | Anthropic, Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic, Claude Models on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) |
| Claude Platform on AWS | Available | claude-opus-4-5 | Same ID as the Claude API | Anthropic |
| Cursor | Available | available, hidden by default; Premium plan or higher, API list price | Anysphere (Cursor) | |
| Databricks | Available | databricks-claude-opus-4-5 | available | Databricks, Databricks-hosted inferenceDatabricks, Detailed list of models supported by Databricks Foundation Model APIs |
| The maker's own API | Available | claude-opus-4-5-20251101 (alias claude-opus-4-5) | context / max output 200K / 64K; status per deprecations table | Anthropic, Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic, Model deprecations |
| GitHub Copilot | Retired | not statedretired picker label Claude Opus 4.5 | retired 2026-09-01 | GitHub, Supported AI models in GitHub Copilot |
| GitHub Models | Retired | not applicableservice retired | service retired July 30, 2026 | GitHub, GitHub Models |
| Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed) | Available | claude-opus-4-5 (GAversion @20251101) | retirement not sooner than Nov 24, 2026; input / output 200,000 / 64,000 | Google, Anthropic's Claude on Google Cloud modelsGoogle, Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.5 on Google CloudAnthropic |
| Microsoft Foundry | Available | claude-opus-4-5 | deployment name defaults to model ID; hosted on Anthropic only; context 200K; no Message Batches API | AnthropicMicrosoft Learn |
| OpenCode | Available | claude-opus-4-5 | OpenCode Zen gateway, Anthropic Messages endpoint | Anomaly (OpenCode), ModelsOpenCode (Anomaly) |
| OpenRouter | Available | anthropic/claude-opus-4.5 | context / max completion 200,000 / 64,000 | OpenRouter |
| Snowflake Cortex | Available | claude-opus-4-5 | Regions: Cross Cloud (Any Region); AWS US (Cross-Region); AWS EU (Cross-Region). Context 200,000; maximum output 64,000 tokens. | Snowflake |
| Windsurf / Devin | Available | MODEL_CLAUDE_4_5_OPUSMODEL_CLAUDE_4_5_OPUS_THINKING | available | Cognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), AI Models |
Not offered on 1 route: Antigravity.
3 routes do not say: Codex, Gemini CLI and Grok Build.
What each of these 4 routes' pages say, with sources
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antigravity | Not offered | not listed; Gemini CLI serves Gemini models only | ||
| Codex | Not stated | Codex model docs list OpenAI models only | ||
| Gemini CLI | Not stated | Region, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages. | ||
| Grok Build | Not stated | Grok Build pages name only grok-4.7 | xAI (SpaceXSI) |
Prices by route
The lowest standard rate is Claude API, at $5 / $25 per million input and output tokens. US dollars per million tokens, as each route lists them, one row per route and rate plan, cheapest standard rate first after the maker's own; a blended rate states its mix.
| Route | Standard, in / out | Cache read | Other rates | Source, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude APIMakerLowest | $5 / $25 | Anthropic, Oct 26, 2026 | ||
| Artificial Analysis price record | $5 / $25 | $0.5 | Blended $10, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $3.85, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 outputCache write $6.25 | Artificial Analysis, Oct 27, 2026 |
Lineup
Anthropic's 14 releases in 4 families, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. Claude Opus 4.5 is lit.
CurrentLegacyThis model
Price is the list price per 1M tokens, input / output. Speed is median output tokens per second. Bars share one scale across the lineup. Read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
Claude Haiku
Anthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.
2 releases
Claude Sonnet
Anthropic's balanced Claude model family.
4 releases
Claude Opus
Anthropic's high-capability Claude model family.
6 releases
- This page4.5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed58.8 tok/s
- 4.6Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed47.7 tok/s
- 4.7Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed54.7 tok/s
- 4.8Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed65.9 tok/s
- 5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed53.3 tok/s
- 5.5Current. In 9 products we coverPrice$4 / $20Speed98.4 tok/s
Claude Fable
Anthropic's Claude family for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.
2 releases
Products
We cover 4 products that offer Claude Opus 4.5 today: 3 subscriptions and 1 API.
Through a subscription
- OpenCode+27 PositiveOpen-source, MIT-licensed coding agent that edits code and runs commands from a terminal UI, desktop app, web client, or editor extension.
- Claude Code+75 Strong positiveAnthropic's agentic coding product for terminal and IDE workflows.
- Cursor+11 MixedAI coding agent and code editor for writing, reviewing, and shipping software, with agents in the editor, the terminal, and the cloud.
Through an API
Comparisons
GILD comparisons that name Claude Opus 4.5, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.
- Amazon Bedrock vs Claude API: Buying Claude Through AWS or From AnthropicCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
- Amazon Bedrock vs Microsoft Foundry: Which Cloud AI Platform Fits Your Stack?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
- Claude API vs Gemini API: Which Model Platform Fits Your Workloads?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
- Claude API vs OpenAI API: Top Scores or Lower Cost per Task?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
- DeepSeek API vs Claude API: Price per Task or Controls and Residency?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
- DeepSeek API vs OpenRouter: Buy DeepSeek From DeepSeek, or From Another Host?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
- Gemini API vs Amazon Bedrock: One Model Family or a Model Marketplace?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
- Gemini API vs Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform: Which Route to Gemini?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
- Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform vs Microsoft Foundry: Google Cloud or Azure for Models and AgentsCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
- LiteLLM vs OpenRouter: Run Your Own Gateway or Rent One?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
- OpenRouter vs Portkey: Rent Model Access or Run a Governed Gateway?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
- Together AI vs OpenRouter: One Open-Model Host or a Router Across HostsCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.5
What practitioners report
Strongest on Speed, weakest on Reliability.
Each figure is the share of accounts naming Claude Opus 4.5 that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.
| Axis | Favorable | Accounts |
|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency. | 62% | 13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors |
| Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track. | 70% | 7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors |
| Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs. | 40% | 4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors |
| Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers. | 67% | 8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authors |
| CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save. | 53% | 8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors |
| SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput. | 73% | 8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors |
| ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked. | 38% | 6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors |
Every model on these seven axes
| Axis | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Claude Opus 5.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GPT-6.1 Terra | GPT-6.1 Sol | GPT-6 Luna | GPT-6 Astra | GPT-5.6 Sol | GPT-5.6 Terra | GPT-5.6 Luna | GPT-5.5 | GPT-5.4 | gpt-oss-120b | GPT-6 Sol | GPT-5.3-Codex | Gemini 4 Argon | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Gemma 4 31B | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Gemini 3.6 Flash | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Kimi K3 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Mistral Large 4 | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Grok 4.7 | Grok 4.6 | Grok 4.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Mercury 3 | GLM-5.3-Flash | GLM-5.3 | GLM-5.2 | Muse Spark Open | Muse Wonder | Muse Spark 1.3 | Llama 4 Scout | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.8 27B | Qwen3.8 Max | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Step 5 Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoning | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors | 73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors | 64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors | 68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors | 67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors | 69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors | 55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors | 44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors | 31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors | 56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors | 80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors | 56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors | 36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors | 86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors | 86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors | 67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors | 76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | 71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors |
| Tool use and structured output | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors | 56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Long context | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | 64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Developer experience | 67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | No accounts yet | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | 25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Cost | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors | 45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors | 56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors | 20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | 8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors | 40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors | 29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authors | Only praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors | 50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors | 19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors | 80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author |
| Speed | 73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors | 78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | 83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | 37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors | 35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Reliability | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors | 15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
The 76 accounts behind Claude Opus 4.5's figures
GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter and the web for accounts that name Claude Opus 4.5.
Quality and reasoning 62%
- Favorable
It is entirely due to Opus 4.5 being an inflection point codingwise over previous LLMs.
Comment on: Claude Code is being dumbed down?. minimaxir, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 11, 2026. Opus 4.5 in Claude Code and through token providers such as OpenRouter.
- Unfavorable
Then, 50/50 chance Opus 4.5 one-shots it, or it also struggles just like auto.
Comment on: Ask HN: Is Cursor still working for you?. evetools, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 3, 2026. Opus 4.5 in Cursor as a fallback from auto mode.
- Unfavorable
GPT 5.2 Codex is often better and more thorough than Opus 4.5, it's just slower.
Comment on: Claude Code is suddenly everywhere inside Microsoft. satvikpendem, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 3, 2026. Opus 4.5 against GPT 5.2 Codex.
- Favorable
Sonnet still struggles while Opus, even 4.5 succeeds
Comment on: Claude Sonnet 4.6. satvikpendem, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 18, 2026. Opus 4.5 against Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6.
- Favorable
At least in Cursor it's much better than Gemini 3 Pro for writing a lot of code autonomously
Comment on: Anthropic taps IPO lawyers as it races OpenAI to go public. baq, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 3, 2025. Opus 4.5 in Cursor against Gemini 3 Pro.
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 is actually useful to one-shot things from detailed prompts for documentation creation
Comment on: Claude Code is being dumbed down?. tristor, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 11, 2026. Opus 4.5 for documentation and code generation.
- Favorable
It can browse and figure out the existing patterns better than some engineers on my team.
Comment on: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far. coffeebeqn, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 7, 2026. Claude Code with Opus 4.5 at a large public startup.
- Unfavorable
you'll have better odds with Codex GPT-5.2-Codex-XHigh than with Claude Code Opus 4.5
Comment on: A few random notes from Claude coding quite a bit last few weeks. meowface, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 28, 2026. Claude Code Opus 4.5 against GPT-5.2-Codex-XHigh.
- Favorable
It one shot most of my tasks with correct code quality.
Comment on: Ask HN: How can I get better at using AI for programming?. thyb23, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 14, 2025. Claude Code with Opus 4.5 on the Claude Max plan.
- Unfavorable
conformance to instructions and output quality was better than most of the leading models I've tested (e.g. Opus 4.5)
Comment on: Step 3.5 Flash – Open-source foundation model, supports deep reasoning at speed. hedgehog, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Opus 4.5 among leading models in the commenter's tests.
- Unfavorable
It produces working code but it makes mistakes. The code is more verbose than it should be, misunderstands/ignores edge cases, etc.
Comment on: Cloudflare to cut about 20% of its workforce. otikik, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 8, 2026. Claude Code with Opus 4.5.
- Favorable
It's clearly an excellent new model, but I did run into a catch.
Claude Opus 4.5, and why evaluating new LLMs is increasingly difficult. Simon Willison, independent developer and blogger, self-described, Nov 24, 2025. Claude Opus 4.5 in Claude Code on sqlite-utils refactors, with early access.
- Favorable
By optimizing our harness for Claude Opus 4.5, we saw an impressive 15% improvement on T-Bench compared to Claude 4.5 Sonnet.
Introducing Support for Claude Opus 4.5. Suraj Gupta, Warp engineering blog author, self-described, Nov 24, 2025. Claude Opus 4.5 in Warp's agent harness with the /plan entrypoint, on Terminal-Bench.
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 completed the same build with 19.3% fewer total tokens and made sharper architectural calls.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Opus 4.5: Which One to Use in 2026. Tony Spiro, Cosmic blog author, self-described, Nov 25, 2025. Claude Opus 4.5 against Sonnet 4.5 on one identical one-shot blog build.
- Favorable
The TL;DR is that Opus 4.5 outperformed GLM 4.7 by (what I consider) a large margin.
Claude Code + Ollama: Stress Testing Opus 4.5 vs GLM 4.7. Edy Silva, Codeminer42 blog author, self-described, Jan 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 in Claude Code against GLM 4.7 on a debugging task.
- Favorable
What amazed me through the process of building this was Opus 4.5 ability to get most things right on the first try.
Opus 4.5 is going to change everything. Burke Holland, developer and blogger, self-described, Jan 5, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 in GitHub Copilot in VS Code with a custom agent prompt.
- Favorable
Now it switched to Claude Opus 4.5 as default model. Ridiculous good and fast.
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.5. morgengold, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 24, 2025. Claude Opus 4.5 as the Claude Code Max default model.
- Unfavorable
CC started up with Opus 4.5 and... Not off to a good start. It described a totally different looking layout on the first prompt
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.5. pwython, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 24, 2025. Opus 4.5 in Claude Code with the Figma MCP.
- Favorable
placing it well above average among comparable models (median: 16)
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmarking publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) on Anthropic's API.
- Favorable
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) is above average in intelligence
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmarking publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) on Anthropic's API.
- Unfavorable
I spent 3 hours debugging and running all kinds of tests with Opus 4.5 for the discrepancy between CLI vs iOS app embeddings and the retrieval
Rudrank Riyam on X: Opus 4.5 against 5.2 Codex xHigh. Rudrank Riyam, creator of ASC CLI, self-described, Jan 26, 2026. Opus 4.5 against 5.2 Codex xHigh on an embeddings discrepancy bug.
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 was the moment it clicked
Opus 4.5 really changed things. Kyle Rush, co-founder of HINT (Home Intelligence), Feb 9, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 with thinking mode and max context in Cursor, eight agents in parallel on a live beta product.
- Unfavorable
GPT 5.2 did slightly better on the stuff that I'm working on currently compared to Opus 4.5
Comment on: GPT-5.3-Codex. int_19h, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 6, 2026. Opus 4.5 against GPT 5.2 on a Lojban parser in Haskell.
Tool use and structured output 70%
- Favorable
it's much better than Gemini 3 Pro for writing a lot of code autonomously: faster and calls tools better
Comment on: Anthropic taps IPO lawyers as it races OpenAI to go public. baq, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 3, 2025. Opus 4.5 in Cursor against Gemini 3 Pro.
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 still ahead inside VSCode Copilot because it is more obedient with regards to tool calling
Comment on: Elevated error rates on Opus 4.5. hu3, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 14, 2026. Opus 4.5 in VSCode Copilot for C# and TypeScript.
- Unfavorable
opus 4.5 would start failing tool calls
Comment on: Don't trust large context windows. pdantix, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 14, 2026. Opus 4.5 through Opus 4.8 in long sessions.
- Favorable
on Opus 4.5+ far far fewer editing errors
Comment on: Show HN: OSS Agent I built topped the TerminalBench on Gemini-3-flash-preview. martinald, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 27, 2026. Opus 4.5 and later with hash-line file editing.
- Favorable
It used the firebase CLI to stand up any resources it needed
Opus 4.5 is going to change everything. Burke Holland, developer and blogger, self-described, Jan 5, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 in GitHub Copilot in VS Code with a custom agent prompt.
- Favorable
The model is great it is able to code up some interesting visual tasks(I guess they have pretty strong tool calling capapbilities)
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.5. visioninmyblood, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 24, 2025. Opus 4.5 orchestrating an image, segmentation and 3D reconstruction pipeline.
- Unfavorable
Using Git Bash, but all Opus 4.5 wants to do on windows is powershell
Using Git Bash, but all Opus 4.5 wants to do on windows is powershell. microsoftnorman, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jan 20, 2026. Opus 4.5 in Copilot CLI on Windows Git Bash.
- Unfavorable
When providing an output JSON schema, the AI often sets the output type to `json`, which doesn't appear to be supported by Windmill.
feature: Improve stability of configure AI Agent Step by Windmill AI (Claude Opus 4.5). Marshall-Qiu, GitHub issue author, self-described, Feb 10, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 inside Windmill AI configuring AI Agent nodes.
- Favorable
Opus is consistently better at the work that actually dominates real engineering: investigation, planning, careful tool use
Opus 4.5 really changed things. Kyle Rush, co-founder of HINT (Home Intelligence), Feb 9, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 with thinking mode and max context in Cursor, eight agents in parallel on a live beta product.
- Favorable
the way Opus 4.5 coordinates multi-step operations, maintains context across tool calls, and recovers from errors
The Agent Unlock: Why Opus 4.5 Changed How I Work. Robert Matsuoka, former CTO and Head of Product Engineering at Tripadvisor, Dec 18, 2025. Opus 4.5 in Claude Code and Claude-MPM agentic workflows.
Long context 40%
- Unfavorable
opus 4.5 would start failing tool calls when approaching its 200k limit
Comment on: Don't trust large context windows. pdantix, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 14, 2026. Opus 4.5 through Opus 4.8 in long sessions.
- Unfavorable
it has the same crippled context that degrades the quality of the model as soon as it fills 50%
Comment on: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far. troupo, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 7, 2026. Opus 4.5 in coding agents.
- Unfavorable
This does sometimes run up against limits on Claude (or recently, with Opus 4.5, compaction)
Comment on: Let's be honest, Generative AI isn't going all that well. idreyn, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 14, 2026. Opus 4.5 on a 100k-word manuscript.
- Unfavorable
I prefer Opus 4.5 so much that I don't mind the added pain of clearing context
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.6. libraryofbabel, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Opus 4.5 against Sonnet 4.5 with the 1M context option.
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 is the best agent I've ever used for making cohesive changes across many files in a large, existing codebase.
Comment on: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far. herpdyderp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 7, 2026. Opus 4.5 on a large existing codebase.
- Favorable
I've found Claude code with Opus 4.5 able to do many of my real tickets in real mid and large codebases
Comment on: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far. coffeebeqn, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 7, 2026. Claude Code with Opus 4.5 at a large public startup.
- Favorable
I find Opus 4.5 very, very strong at matching the prevailing conventions/idioms/abstractions in a large, established codebase.
Comment on: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far. ivanech, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 7, 2026. Opus 4.5 in a large, established codebase.
- Unfavorable
Using Opus 4.5, I have noticed that in long sessions about a complex topic, there often comes a point when Opus starts spouting utter gibberish.
Comment on: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far. mcv, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 9, 2026. Opus 4.5 in long sessions on a complex topic.
- Favorable
With Opus 4.5? Twenty minutes of coherent, unsupervised work. Sometimes thirty.
The Agent Unlock: Why Opus 4.5 Changed How I Work. Robert Matsuoka, former CTO and Head of Product Engineering at Tripadvisor, Dec 18, 2025. Opus 4.5 in Claude Code and Claude-MPM agentic workflows.
- Unfavorable
doesn't get bogged down by large context, which was something GPT 5.2 was noticeably better at compared to Opus 4.5
sjoti comments on I use Codex and CC and its not even close for me. sjoti, r/ClaudeCode commenter and power user of Claude Code and Codex, self-described, Feb 9, 2026. Opus 4.5 against GPT 5.2 in Claude Code and Codex.
Developer experience 67%
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 is the best out of all agents I've tried at following the guidance to do only-what
Comment on: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7. rectang, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 18, 2026. Opus 4.5 as the agent driver in VSCode Copilot.
- Unfavorable
It goes off on these huge 10min tangents
Comment on: Nanobot: Ultra-Lightweight Alternative to OpenClaw. ryanjshaw, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Opus 4.5 on a $200 Claude Max plan.
- Unfavorable
I've had great success using Claude Opus 4.5, as long as I hold its hand very tightly.
Comment on: Insights into Claude Opus 4.5 from Pokémon. skerit, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 12, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 with a constantly updated CLAUDE.md.
- Favorable
almost unlimited access to Opus 4.5 :) the agent and DX is top notch
Comment on: Ask HN: How can I get better at using AI for programming?. thyb23, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 14, 2025. Claude Code with Opus 4.5 on the Claude Max plan.
- Unfavorable
opus 4.5 defaults to a more verbose style than i care for
Comment on: I miss thinking hard. CraigJPerry, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 4, 2026. Opus 4.5 with steering for code style.
- Favorable
I did not need to steer Opus 4.5 at many points. A good description was more than enough
Comment on: GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.2-Codex are now 40% faster. ramon156, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 4, 2026. Opus 4.5 against Opus 4.1.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.5 was itself a step function but I was still steering that significantly
Comment on: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?. markbao, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 4.5 against Fable 5.
- Favorable
The agent harness in VS Code for Opus 4.5 is so good - you don't need much else.
Opus 4.5 is going to change everything. Burke Holland, developer and blogger, self-described, Jan 5, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 in GitHub Copilot in VS Code with a custom agent prompt.
- Favorable
Opus is much easier to steer interactively because you can see what it's doing in more detail
Comment on: GPT-5.3-Codex. int_19h, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 6, 2026. Opus 4.5 against GPT 5.2 on a Lojban parser in Haskell.
- Favorable
Claude (Opus 4.5, but also the others) just "gets how I think" better
Comment on: Codex is a Slytherin, Claude is a Hufflepuff. jorl17, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 24, 2025. Claude Opus 4.5 for Python and Django against Gemini 3 and GPT 5.2.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 (and before that, Opus 4.5) are just much better at following my instructions
Comment on: Changes to GitHub Copilot individual plans. fkarg, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 20, 2026. Opus 4.6 and before that Opus 4.5.
- Favorable
communicates better, is more steerable, is faster and gives intermittent updates, which are all aspects opus 4.5 did significantly better at than GPT 5.2
sjoti comments on I use Codex and CC and its not even close for me. sjoti, r/ClaudeCode commenter and power user of Claude Code and Codex, self-described, Feb 9, 2026. Opus 4.5 against GPT 5.2 in Claude Code and Codex.
Cost 53%
- Unfavorable
When we launched, our LLM costs were staggering. A single complex task with Opus 4.5 could consume 60 million tokens.
How We Cut LLM Costs by 59% With Prompt Caching. Parth Malhotra, ProjectDiscovery blog author, self-described, Apr 10, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 running ProjectDiscovery's Neo security agent, with explicit cache breakpoints.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.5 is expensive to put it mildly, which makes Claude Code more compelling.
Comment on: Claude Code is being dumbed down?. minimaxir, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 11, 2026. Opus 4.5 in Claude Code and through token providers such as OpenRouter.
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 was more expensive per token than Sonnet 4.5, but it used a lot less tokens so final price per completed task was very close between the two, with Opus sometimes ending up cheaper
Comment on: Claude Sonnet 4.6. amedviediev, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 17, 2026. Opus 4.5 against Sonnet 4.5 in agentic use.
- Favorable
A $200/month Cursor plan spent on Opus 4.5 calls is not expensive compared to the silly amount of work it will do
Comment on: Ask HN: Do you have any evidence that agentic coding works?. peteforde, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 21, 2026. Opus 4.5 in Cursor on a $200/month plan with plan, agent and debug cycles.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.5 is great but pretty expensive if you're a heavy user.
Comment on: Ask HN: Is Cursor still working for you?. evetools, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 3, 2026. Opus 4.5 in Cursor as a fallback from auto mode.
- Favorable
I've gone all in on Opus 4.5 because even though it's more expensive, it solves the problems I care about with far fewer tokens.
Comment on: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term. bastawhiz, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 28, 2025. Opus 4.5, chosen over cheaper models for the commenter's own problems.
- Unfavorable
I find Opus 4.5/4.6 too expensive and have tried to migrate to DeepSeek for C++ work
Comment on: Statement on US government directive to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5. EchoVoicy, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 13, 2026. Opus 4.5 and 4.6 for C++ work.
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 came in at double the speed and half the price of old opus.
Comment on: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?. irthomasthomas, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 15, 2026. Opus 4.5 against older Opus models.
- Unfavorable
GPT-5.2 with extra-high thinking is consistently a bit better and significantly cheaper
Comment on: Qwen3-Max-Thinking. oersted, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 26, 2026. Opus 4.5 against GPT-5.2 with extra-high thinking.
- Favorable
It's so much cheaper, in fact, that the weekly limits on Claude Code now apply to Sonnet, not to Opus
Comment on: Alignment is capability. airstrike, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 8, 2025. Opus 4.5 against Opus 4.1 in Claude Code.
- Unfavorable
This drives up price faster than quality though.
Comment on: Ask HN: How can I get better at using AI for programming?. nrds, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 13, 2025. Opus 4.5 as a fix for weak agent results.
- Favorable
The pricing is a big relief: $5/million for input and $25/million for output. This is a lot cheaper than the previous Opus at $15/$75
Claude Opus 4.5, and why evaluating new LLMs is increasingly difficult. Simon Willison, independent developer and blogger, self-described, Nov 24, 2025. Claude Opus 4.5 in Claude Code on sqlite-utils refactors, with early access.
- Unfavorable
Opus used 19.3% fewer tokens and still cost roughly 41% more for this build.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Opus 4.5: Which One to Use in 2026. Tony Spiro, Cosmic blog author, self-described, Nov 25, 2025. Claude Opus 4.5 against Sonnet 4.5 on one identical one-shot blog build.
- Favorable
What's super interesting is that Opus is cheaper all-in than Sonnet for many usage patterns.
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.5. sqs, Hacker News commenter on the Amp team, self-described, Nov 24, 2025. Opus 4.5 in Amp's internal usage, against Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3 Pro.
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 stacks up very well here when you compare to Gemini 3's score and cost.
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.5. futureshock, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 24, 2025. Opus 4.5 on the ARC-AGI-2 leaderboard by thinking budget.
- Unfavorable
$5.00 per 1M input tokens (expensive, median: $2.00) and $25.00 per 1M output tokens (expensive, median: $10.00). At 51
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmarking publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) on Anthropic's API.
- Unfavorable
but particularly expensive when comparing to other models of similar price
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmarking publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) on Anthropic's API.
Speed 73%
- Favorable
Six models sit on the Pareto frontier: Claude Haiku 4.5 at the fast-but-inaccurate end (27s, 40.2%), followed by GLM-4.7 (42s, 58.1%), Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3 Pro Preview (both near 50s, 70%)
MCP-Atlas: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Tool-Use Competency with Real MCP Servers. Chaithanya Bandi, lead author of the MCP-Atlas paper, self-described, May 19, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 at effort high with a 10k thinking budget, among 20 models on real MCP servers.
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 came in at double the speed and half the price of old opus. Its speed matched older sonnet models.
Comment on: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?. irthomasthomas, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 15, 2026. Opus 4.5 against older Opus models.
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 is fast enough and I value the piece-of-mind I have knowing it's quality is higher
Comment on: Nvidia to buy assets from Groq for $20B cash. wyre, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 25, 2025. Opus 4.5 for coding, against Cerebras Code.
- Favorable
However, Opus 4.5 is much faster and very high quality too, and that ends up mattering more in practice.
Comment on: Qwen3-Max-Thinking. oersted, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 26, 2026. Opus 4.5 against GPT-5.2 with extra-high thinking.
- Favorable
Opus 4.5 is like a cheaper, faster Opus 4.1.
Comment on: Alignment is capability. airstrike, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 8, 2025. Opus 4.5 against Opus 4.1 in Claude Code.
- Favorable
It's far slower than Opus 4.5 but more likely to get things correct
Comment on: A few random notes from Claude coding quite a bit last few weeks. meowface, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 28, 2026. Claude Code Opus 4.5 against GPT-5.2-Codex-XHigh.
- Unfavorable
Also increases latency.
Comment on: Ask HN: How can I get better at using AI for programming?. nrds, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 13, 2025. Opus 4.5 as a fix for weak agent results.
- Unfavorable
I've done experiments where it is faster than Claude Opus 4.5 for the same prompts.
Comment on: Apple Silicon costs more than OpenRouter. avidphantasm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 17, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 against Gemma 4 31B on an M5 Max.
- Unfavorable
Gemini 3 Pro being 50% of the latency as Opus 4.5 or GPT 5.1
Comment on: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term. bastawhiz, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 27, 2025. Opus 4.5 against Gemini 3 Pro and GPT 5.1.
- Favorable
And it's remarkably fast.
Opus 4.5 is going to change everything. Burke Holland, developer and blogger, self-described, Jan 5, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 in GitHub Copilot in VS Code with a custom agent prompt.
- Favorable
it seems a bit too fast to be the same size, almost 2x the Tokens Per Second and much lower Time To First Token
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.5. BoorishBears, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 24, 2025. Opus 4.5 on launch day against Opus 4.1.
- Favorable
feels faster than 4.1 and did what Sonnet 4.5 struggled to execute properly
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.5. elvin_d, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 24, 2025. Opus 4.5 first run against Opus 4.1 and Sonnet 4.5.
- Unfavorable
At 51 tokens per second, Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) is slower than average (81).
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmarking publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) on Anthropic's API.
- Unfavorable
At 55 tokens per second, Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) is notably slow (83).
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmarking publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) on Anthropic's API.
Reliability 38%
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.5 was nerfed just before or after the release of 4.6.
Comment on: $500 GPU outperforms Claude Sonnet on coding benchmarks. withinboredom, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 27, 2026. Opus 4.5 against Opus 4.6 at high effort.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.5 has degraded so much in the recent days
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.6. silverwind, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Opus 4.5 in Claude Code, citing the Marginlab tracker.
- Unfavorable
Unfortunately it's been nerfed
Comment on: Claude Code is being dumbed down?. tristor, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 11, 2026. Opus 4.5 for documentation and code generation.
- Favorable
Now with the lower credit burn of Opus 4.5 i haven't had a rate limit since.
Comment on: Graphite is joining Cursor. hetspookjee, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 20, 2025. Opus 4.5 on Claude Code Max.
- Favorable
I've only managed to hit the Opus 4.5 limit once after a really productive 4-hour session.
Comment on: How Google got its groove back and edged ahead of OpenAI. walthamstow, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 8, 2026. Opus 4.5 in Claude Code.
- Unfavorable
Java 7 parts are done with Opus 4.5 and it constantly hits its limits, I have to regularly intervene.
Comment on: JOPA: Java compiler in C++, Jikes modernized to Java 6 with Claude. pshirshov, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 26, 2025. Opus 4.5 on a Java 7 migration.
- Unfavorable
occasionally the model enters a degraded state
Inconsistent Model Performance - Occasional Severe Degradation in Claude Opus 4.5. roy199911, GitHub issue author, self-described, Dec 29, 2025. Claude Opus 4.5 (claude-opus-4-5-20251101) in Claude Code.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.5 usage limits have been significantly reduced compared to all previous weeks since Opus 4.5 launched in November 2025
[BUG] Opus 4.5 usage limits significantly reduced since January 2026 - most restrictive since Opus 4.5 launch. alex-feel, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jan 9, 2026. Opus 4.5 in Claude Code on a weekly plan limit.
- Unfavorable
When making an Agent request using Claude Opus 4.5 I have been getting the same error message all day
Claude Opus 4.5 requests return error 400. nick-holmes, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jan 9, 2026. Claude Opus 4.5 in Copilot for Xcode agent mode.
- Favorable
I'm hitting token limits less frequently.
The Agent Unlock: Why Opus 4.5 Changed How I Work. Robert Matsuoka, former CTO and Head of Product Engineering at Tripadvisor, Dec 18, 2025. Opus 4.5 in Claude Code and Claude-MPM agentic workflows.
- Favorable
Hasn't Opus 4.5 been famously consistent while 4.6 was floating all over the place?
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.7. drewnick, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 16, 2026. Opus 4.5 against Opus 4.6 over time.
- Favorable
I know plenty of people who never hit the upgraded Opus 4.5 limits anymore even on the $100 plan
Comment on: Anthropic made a mistake in cutting off third-party clients. anonym29, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 13, 2026. Opus 4.5 on Claude Code $100 and $200 plans.
- Favorable
That hasn't been true with Opus 4.5. I usually hit my limit after an hour of intense sessions.
Comment on: A guide to local coding models. kxrm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Dec 22, 2025. Opus 4.5 in intense Claude Code sessions.
- Unfavorable
With Opus 4.5 and 4.6 I would hit resource limits after a reasonable amount of work
Comment on: Claude Code to be removed from Anthropic's Pro plan?. moregrist, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 21, 2026. Opus 4.5 and 4.6 on the $20 monthly plan.
- Unfavorable
Workflows I have run hundreds of times have stopped working with Opus 4.5
Comment on: Auto-compact not triggering on Claude.ai despite being marked as fixed. ryanar, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jan 24, 2026. Opus 4.5 in Claude Code workflows run hundreds of times.
- Unfavorable
Especially seeing Opus 4.5 degrading prior to the 4.6 release (IIRC) and Codex staying very stable
Comment on: Claude Code is being dumbed down?. WXLCKNO, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 11, 2026. Opus 4.5 on the Marginlab Claude Code tracker.