Speed
44tokens a second
Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at reasoning off.
- First token
- 2.0 s
- Whole answer
- 38 s
Claude Opus model by Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
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 4.6. 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 4.6
- Claude Opus 4.6
Suggested comparisons
The models a buyer weighs against Claude Opus 4.6, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Claude Opus 4.6.
Claude Opus 4.6
Ranked against the 40 current releases on this chart, Claude Opus 4.6 ranks 11th of 31 on Factuality. It ranks lowest on Instruction following, 9th of 9 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 4.6This pageResults on 8 of 12 axes$5 / $2548 tokens/sFirst token in 22 s
Prices and speeds read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6Not 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 4.6Not 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 4.666%
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 4.688.4%
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 4.639.9%
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 4.6Not 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 4.6Not 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 4.678%
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 4.675.4%
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 4.647%Hallucination rate 62.8% 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 4.659.9%With thinking on, SpeechMap counted 27.9% of requests denied and 10.4% evaded. With thinking off, the model completes 49.8%.1.9% 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 4.637.2%On Oct 28, 2026, Scale AI ranked this run 35th. The same model with thinking off scores 56.02 on Scale's board.Plus or minus 2.16 points (95% interval)
Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Claude Opus 4.6, with where each figure sits among the 41 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.
Capacity
1Mtokens
Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.
- Reads
- Text, Images
Quality
26.4of 100
Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at reasoning off.
- Epoch Capabilities Index
- 156
Hallucination
62.8%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 max effort.
- Knowledge accuracy
- 47.0%
Where you can get it
14of 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, Anthropic, Epoch AI and GILD's route matrix, read Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for Claude Opus 4.6: 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 4.6 | 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 | 66% | Effort: max. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Feb 5, 2026 |
| Science | GPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 88.4% | Effort: max. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Feb 5, 2026 |
| Hard reasoning | Humanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools | 39.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. 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 | 78% | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Multimodal | MMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools | 75.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Factuality | AA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 47%Hallucination rate 62.8% in the same run (lower is better) | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Answers in full | SpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. With thinking on, SpeechMap counted 27.9% of requests denied and 10.4% evaded. With thinking off, the model completes 49.8%. | 59.9%1.9% 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 this run 35th. The same model with thinking off scores 56.02 on Scale's board. | 37.2%Plus or minus 2.16 points (95% interval) | Effort: max. Harness: none. | Scale AI SEAL | Oct 28, 2026 |
Price and speed
- Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. Anthropic pricing, Oct 26, 2026.
- Claude Opus 4.6, at max effort, writes 47.7 output tokens per second on Anthropic's API, and its first token arrives 22 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 4.6 | 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 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 4.5 | 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 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 4.6 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 4.6 | 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. | 1M | Anthropic's pricing page: Claude 4.6 and later models, except Claude Haiku 5.5, include the full 1M token context window | Anthropic | Oct 28, 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. | 14 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. | 38 s | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) | 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. | 27 s | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) | 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. | 44 tokens/s | Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) | 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. | 2.0 s | Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) | 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. | 62.8% | Max effort | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly. | 47% | Max effort | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100. | 13.7 | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) | 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. | 47% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Aug 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge work | ||||
| APEX-Agents (AA run)AA's run of APEX-Agents professional tasks. | 33.0% | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| APEX-Agents (maintainers)APEX-Agents pass@1 from the maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 46.3% | Max effort | Mercor (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Vending-Bench 2Vending-Bench 2 final balance of a simulated vending business run by the model, as Epoch AI republishes it. | $8,018 | Andon Labs (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| Capability beyond the chart | ||||
| AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy. | 67% | Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 997 | Sakana AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| ARC-AGI-2ARC-AGI-2 score from the ARC Prize maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 69.2% | 120K thinking tokens | ARC Prize Foundation (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 21% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Oct 13, 2026 |
| CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run. | 12.6% | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 91.2% | Max 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. | 156 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Epoch AI | Oct 26, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tier 4 research math problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 26.8% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jun 11, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 66.0% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jun 11, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA run)GPQA Diamond accuracy in AA's run. | 84.0% | Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. | 88.4% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Aug 6, 2026 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run. | 19.1% | Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| IFBench (AA run)Instruction-following accuracy on IFBench in AA's run. | 53.1% | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points. | 26.4 | Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) | 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. | 55.8 | Max 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. | 12.0 h | METR (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| MMMU-Pro (AA run)Multimodal understanding accuracy on MMMU-Pro in AA's run. | 75.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 25% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jul 25, 2026 |
| OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch)Share of OTIS Mock AIME 2024 to 2025 problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 91.1% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Aug 6, 2026 |
| ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it. | 50% | Max effort | Vals AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| tau2-Bench (AA run)AA's tau2-Bench tool-use score. | 92.1% | Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) | 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. | 1,547 | High effort | LMArena (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
Routes, prices and uptime
Where Claude Opus 4.6 is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.
Where it is offered
14 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer Claude Opus 4.6 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-4-6-v1 (InvokeModel) | us./eu./au./global. profiles; no bedrock-mantle; Active, EOL not sooner than Feb 5, 2027; tiers: Standard and Reserved; context / output 1M / 128K | Amazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Antigravity | Available | not statedpicker label Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking) * | Antigravity: Free/Plus and Pro until removal Nov 2, 2026; Gemini CLI serves Gemini models only | |
| Claude Code | Available | claude-opus-4-6 | By full model name on the Anthropic API, or provider ARN, version or deployment name; aliases resolve per provider; the opus alias resolves to Opus 4.6 on Microsoft Foundry; 1M context only through the [1m] variant, whose access depends on plan (page read Oct 28, 2026) | Anthropic |
| Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) | Available | claude-opus-4-6 | Claude API model IDs (dated IDs use a hyphen) | Anthropic, Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic, Claude Models on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) |
| Claude Platform on AWS | Available | claude-opus-4-6 | 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-4-6 | available | Databricks, Databricks-hosted inferenceDatabricks, Detailed list of models supported by Databricks Foundation Model APIs |
| The maker's own API | Available | claude-opus-4-6 | context / max output 1M / 128K; status per deprecations table | Anthropic, Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic, Model deprecations |
| GitHub Copilot | Retired | not statedretired picker label Claude Opus 4.6 | 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-4-6 (GA) | retirement not sooner than Feb 5, 2027; input / output 1,000,000 / 128,000 | Google, Anthropic's Claude on Google Cloud modelsGoogle, Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.6 on Google CloudAnthropic |
| Microsoft Foundry | Available | claude-opus-4-6 | deployment name defaults to model ID; hosted on Anthropic only; context 1M; no Message Batches API | AnthropicMicrosoft Learn |
| OpenCode | Available | claude-opus-4-6 | OpenCode Zen gateway, Anthropic Messages endpoint | Anomaly (OpenCode), ModelsOpenCode (Anomaly) |
| OpenRouter | Available | anthropic/claude-opus-4.6 | context / max completion 1,000,000 / 128,000 | OpenRouter |
| Snowflake Cortex | Available | claude-opus-4-6 | Regions: Cross Cloud (Any Region); AWS US (Cross-Region); AWS EU (Cross-Region); AWS APJ (Cross-Region); AWS AU (Cross-Region); AWS Europe West 2 (London). Context 1,000,000; maximum output 128,000 tokens. | Snowflake |
| Windsurf / Devin | Available | claude-opus-4-6claude-opus-4-6-1mclaude-opus-4-6-thinkingclaude-opus-4-6-thinking-1m | available (incl. 1M variant) | Cognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), AI ModelsCognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), Compliance and Availability |
3 routes do not say: Codex, Gemini CLI and Grok Build.
What each of these 3 routes' pages say, with sources
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 4.6 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
- 4.5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed58.8 tok/s
- This page4.6Legacy. 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 4.6 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 4.6, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.
- Claude Code vs Codex: Which Agentic Coding Workflow Fits Your Team?Names Claude Opus 4.6
- Copilot Studio vs Gemini Enterprise: Building Workplace Agents on Microsoft or GoogleNames Claude Opus 4.6
- Amazon Bedrock vs Claude API: Buying Claude Through AWS or From AnthropicCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
- Amazon Bedrock vs Microsoft Foundry: Which Cloud AI Platform Fits Your Stack?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
- Claude API vs Gemini API: Which Model Platform Fits Your Workloads?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
- Claude API vs OpenAI API: Top Scores or Lower Cost per Task?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
- DeepSeek API vs Claude API: Price per Task or Controls and Residency?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
- DeepSeek API vs OpenRouter: Buy DeepSeek From DeepSeek, or From Another Host?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
- Gemini API vs Amazon Bedrock: One Model Family or a Model Marketplace?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
- Gemini API vs Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform: Which Route to Gemini?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
- Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform vs Microsoft Foundry: Google Cloud or Azure for Models and AgentsCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
- LiteLLM vs OpenRouter: Run Your Own Gateway or Rent One?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
- OpenRouter vs Portkey: Rent Model Access or Run a Governed Gateway?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
- Together AI vs OpenRouter: One Open-Model Host or a Router Across HostsCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.6
What practitioners report
Strongest on Quality and reasoning, weakest on Reliability.
Each figure is the share of accounts naming Claude Opus 4.6 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. | 70% | 19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors |
| Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track. | 33% | 4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors |
| Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs. | 64% | 7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors |
| Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers. | 45% | 5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors |
| CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save. | 33% | 7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors |
| SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput. | 36% | 4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors |
| ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked. | 20% | 3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors |
Every model on these seven axes
| Axis | Claude Opus 4.6 | 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 4.5 | 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 | 70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 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 | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 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 | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 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 | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 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 | 64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 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 | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 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 | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 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 | 67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 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 | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 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 | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 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 | 36%4 favorable, 7 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 | 73%8 favorable, 3 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 | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 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 | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 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 84 accounts behind Claude Opus 4.6's figures
GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, Vals AI, the Cursor forum and the web for accounts that name Claude Opus 4.6.
Quality and reasoning 70%
- Favorable
"us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1" # best results
Comment on open-weight models against Sonnet. nijave, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 29, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1 (Claude Opus 4.6) on Amazon Bedrock in a Strands Agents devops agent.
- Unfavorable
Claude Opus 4.6 was just never significantly better than 4.5
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.7. gertlabs, Hacker News commenter running the Gertlabs eval suite, self-described, Apr 16, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 via the API, resampled on Gertlabs evals.
- Unfavorable
I was underwhelmed by Opus4.6. I didn't get a sense of significant improvement
Comment on: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use. GorbachevyChase, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Opus 4.6 on a subscription plan.
- Favorable
There is no doubt claude opus4.6 is best model to use this
Comment on: Show HN: I'm building niche AI agents with OpenClaw (Clawsify). Vanshfin, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 13, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6.
- Favorable
we give our clients the best possible quality/price - which is Opus 4.6
Comment on: Migrating a production AI agent to GPT-5.6: 2.2x faster, 27% cheaper. Ruslan Ianberdin (ianberdin), Founder & CEO of Playcode, Jul 13, 2026. Opus 4.6 serving Playcode.io clients, against GPT-5.6 Sol and Opus 4.8.
- Favorable
Since Opus 4.6, LLMs have been pretty clever at using fancy types with libraries like Servant and Beam.
Comment on: After 7 years in production, Scarf has reluctantly moved away from Haskell. cosmic_quanta, Hacker News commenter using Haskell in production at Bitnomial, self-described, Jul 10, 2026. Opus 4.6 on production Haskell with Servant and Beam.
- Favorable
~2.68x median speedup of primitive-to-boolean casting credited to Claude Opus 4.6
Comment on: Is it all just vapourware?. simonw, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 9, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 on a polars performance pull request.
- Unfavorable
I've had Opus 4.6 fall into some weirdly incoherent loops that I rarely see from even Sonnet
Comment on: There is minimal downside to switching to open models. nessex, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 22, 2026. Opus 4.6.
- Favorable
I'm perfectly happy at claude opus 4.6. All improvements since then have not meaningfully improved my day to day.
Comment on: Apple Foundation Models. bushbaba, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 15, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 at about $1K a month of Anthropic spend.
- Favorable
I actually think 4.6 and GLM work better in practice than opus 4.7 or 4.8
Comment on: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis. leemoore, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 17, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Opus 4.7, Opus 4.8 and GLM 5.2.
- Unfavorable
Codex/GPT5.4 is just superior to Opus4.6 for coding.
Comment on: Anthropic downgraded cache TTL on March 6th. glerk, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 12, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code against Codex with GPT-5.4.
- Favorable
opus4.6 is excellent at following user intent and recognise potential prompt injection attempts
Comment on: What happened after 2k people tried to hack my AI assistant. veganmosfet, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 26, 2026. Opus 4.6 in OpenClaw processing email.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 was the best model in the family
Comment on: GPT-5.6. epolanski, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 9, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Opus 4.7 and 4.8.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 on its own seems to find software defects better than any previous Anthropic model
Benchmarking Opus 4.6 For Vuln Detection: Flashes Of Brilliance But Lots of Noise. John Walker, ZeroPath blog author, self-described, Apr 2, 2026. Opus 4.6 on 435 vulnerable C functions from PrimeVul, four prompt and tool configurations.
- Favorable
placing it well above average among comparable models (median: 16)
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) on Artificial Analysis.
- Favorable
placing it above average among comparable models (median: 27)
Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 (Max), adaptive reasoning, on Artificial Analysis.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 is actually a legitimate step up in capability for security research
Comment on: Evaluating and mitigating the growing risk of LLM-discovered 0-days. lebovic, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 7, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code fuzzing a public API for security research.
- Unfavorable
But instead of admitting defeat, it hallucinated a vulnerability report
Comment on: N-Day-Bench – Can LLMs find real vulnerabilities in real codebases?. sigmoid10, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 14, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 on the N-Day Bench vulnerability leaderboard trace.
- Favorable
The only model that consistently answers it correctly is Opus 4.6
Comment on: Claude Sonnet 4.6. awestroke, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 18, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Haiku, Sonnet, ChatGPT and Gemini models on a reasoning question.
- Favorable
So far Opus 4.6 and Gemini Pro are very satisfactory
Comment on: Qwen3.5 122B and 35B models offer Sonnet 4.5 performance on local computers. mstaoru, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 28, 2026. Opus 4.6 on a deep research question, against Gemini Pro and a local Qwen model.
- Favorable
It produces significantly better results in my work than any Codex 5.3 tier.
Comment on: Claude becomes number one app on the U.S. App Store. verst, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 1, 2026. Opus 4.6 fast mode against Codex 5.3.
- Unfavorable
I never once saw Opus come out ahead
Comment on: Anthropic says OpenClaw-style Claude CLI usage is allowed again. redrove, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 21, 2026. Opus 4.6 against GPT-5.4 xhigh in Codex.
- Favorable
Even when used as a drop-in replacement for Opus 4.5, we saw a 5-10% lift in all of our benchmarks.
Our early impressions of Claude Opus 4.6. Resolve AI engineering team, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Opus 4.6 tested as a drop-in replacement for Opus 4.5 on Resolve AI's hardest production investigation scenarios.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 achieved an overall performance score of 68%, a meaningful improvement over the 58% baseline set by Opus 4.5
From raw data to insight: Reasoning with Claude Opus 4.6 on Box AI. Rutuja Rajwade, Senior Product Marketing Manager, Platform & AI at Box, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 in Box AI Studio on Box's heavy-reasoning enterprise evaluation.
- Favorable
just a few tests, but the results it gives are very precise
Wes Winder on Opus 4.6 speed. Wes Winder, developer who reviews models and coding agents, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Opus 4.6 at max reasoning, first tests against Codex.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 > Codex-5.3-xhigh for this task
Yuchen Jin on Codex 5.3 vs Opus 4.6. Yuchen Jin, X user, self-described, Feb 6, 2026. Opus 4.6 optimizing nanochat's GPT-2 speedrun overnight, against Codex 5.3 xhigh.
- Unfavorable
Codex 5.3 produced more correct code than Opus 4.6
Taelin's early impressions on Codex 5.3 and Opus 4.6. Taelin, X user, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Codex 5.3 on a day of vibe coding and test prompts.
- Favorable
While this is the highest point estimate we've reported
METR time horizon estimate for Claude Opus 4.6. METR, nonprofit AI evaluation group, self-described, Feb 20, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 on METR's software task suite.
- Favorable
It arrives at sound solutions that work.
Comment on: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7. matheusmoreira, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 20, 2026. Opus 4.6 with fixed settings and prompt.
- Unfavorable
I don't think Opus 4.6 is good enough to be unsupervised
Comment on: Code Is Cheap Now, and That Changes Everything. packetlost, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 9, 2026. Opus 4.6 on greenfield and brownfield projects, against Kimi K2.5.
Tool use and structured output 33%
- Unfavorable
the API returns `stop_reason: terminated` when the tool input content parameter exceeds approximately 6-8KB of text
Streaming tool_use with adaptive thinking: terminated stop_reason on long tool input content. OneSpiral, GitHub user, self-described, Mar 31, 2026. claude-opus-4-6 (Claude Opus 4.6), streaming Messages API, adaptive thinking.
- Unfavorable
sometimes it outputs in markdown, without being asked to (e.g. "**13**" instead of "13"), even when asked to respond with a number only
Comment on: Shall I implement it? No. XCSme, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 12, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 at medium effort on the commenter's AIBenchy tests.
- Unfavorable
Opus had way better world knowledge but was more "human" with agent stuff - sort of lazy and uncreative, basically giving up once the obvious solutions failed
Comment on: Qwen3.8 27B scores 52 on Artificial Analysis. x313, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 17, 2026. Opus 4.6 against a newer agentic model.
- Favorable
it found a real vulnerability after 100+ uninterrupted tool calls
Comment on: Evaluating and mitigating the growing risk of LLM-discovered 0-days. lebovic, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 7, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code fuzzing a public API for security research.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.6 handles tool calls differently than 4.5 did and it broke a couple of my automation workflows
Comment on: Show HN: Is Claude Nerfed Today?. KirMoisha, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 13, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code on Max20 with 10 to 15 parallel subagents.
- Unfavorable
4.6 is less likely to do research, write to artifacts, or make external tool calls unless you specifically ask it to
Comment on: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use. SkyPuncher, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Opus 4.5 on a Max subscription, daily.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 understands async tools really well.
Our early impressions of Claude Opus 4.6. Resolve AI engineering team, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Opus 4.6 tested as a drop-in replacement for Opus 4.5 on Resolve AI's hardest production investigation scenarios.
- Unfavorable
The Text Extractor agent fails with `stop_reason='refusal'` (zero output tokens) when processing this paper via Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.6 refuses structured extraction for some arXiv papers. wconnell, GitHub user, self-described, Apr 19, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 as a structured text extractor over arXiv papers.
- Unfavorable
the subagent frequently stalls after completing tool calls
Explore subagent hangs indefinitely with Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 -- no timeout or recovery. harminder0209, GitHub user, self-described, May 25, 2026. Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 in OpenCode 1.2.0 Explore subagents.
- Unfavorable
stopReason: "tool_use" (no toolUse block)
[BUG] tool_use stop with no toolUse blocks breaks the next request. masiljangajji, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 15, 2026. global.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1 on Bedrock Converse stream via Strands Agents.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 is still hands down the best model at tool call loops and just doing the right thing. Nothing comes close.
Kumar Abhirup on Opus 4.6 tool call loops. Kumar Abhirup, Co-Founder & CTO of Dench.com, Mar 18, 2026. Opus 4.6 running DenchClaw agent loops, against GPT.
- Favorable
Fixed the Opus 4.8 tool call issue in one workflow…. by moving to 4.6.
Patrick Moorhead on Opus 4.8 tool calls. Patrick Moorhead, Founder, CEO and Chief Analyst of Moor Insights & Strategy, self-described, Jun 7, 2026. Opus 4.6 replacing Opus 4.8 in an agent workflow.
Long context 64%
- Unfavorable
does not enable the 1M context window for Opus 4.6 when running on AWS Bedrock
Opus 4.6 on Bedrock excluded from 1M context window. bd-david-bostick, GitHub user, self-described, Mar 17, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1 (Claude Opus 4.6) on Bedrock in Claude Code CLI 2.1.77.
- Favorable
950K input tokens: succeeds
Amazon Bedrock Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6 context window is 1M, not 200K. sergical, GitHub user, self-described, Mar 18, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1 (Claude Opus 4.6) on the Bedrock Converse API.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 and newer have worked very reliably for long context to me (i don't perceive any intelligence drop at 700-900K tokens)
Comment on: Why Software Factories Fail (or: harness engineering is not enough). 2001zhaozhao, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 23, 2026. Opus 4.6 at 700K to 900K tokens of context.
- Unfavorable
I notice the intelligence drop drastically with long contexts with Opus 4.6. It's barely usable for anything intricate and long.
Comment on: Why Software Factories Fail (or: harness engineering is not enough). hansvm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 23, 2026. Opus 4.6 with long contexts.
- Favorable
For a large project Claude's Opus 4.6+ just work, whereas local gemma tangles itself up
Comment on: Running local models is good now. linuxhansl, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 17, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 on a large project, against local Gemma.
- Unfavorable
defending against a disastrous mid-implementation compaction (where suddenly things would veer off the rails)
Comment on: Plan mode is dead. cronin101, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 26, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code plan mode.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 is a lot better at long standing conversations
Comment on: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use. SkyPuncher, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Opus 4.5 on a Max subscription, daily.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 holds focus better and is much more resilient to recency bias.
Our early impressions of Claude Opus 4.6. Resolve AI engineering team, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Opus 4.6 tested as a drop-in replacement for Opus 4.5 on Resolve AI's hardest production investigation scenarios.
- Unfavorable
Context compaction triggers every 3-5 exchanges in conversations with pre-loaded project files
Context compaction triggers too frequently on claude.ai web (Opus 4.6). macjab, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 16, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 on claude.ai web, Max plan, project sessions with preloaded files.
- Favorable
My first impressions of Claude Code with Opus 4.6 and a 1M context window have been very positive.
Rafael Bittencourt on Claude Code with Opus 4.6 1M. Rafael Bittencourt, X user, self-described, Mar 14, 2026. Claude Code with Opus 4.6 and the 1M context window.
- Favorable
I use them to reliably go through logs that are like 15k lines long
Comment on: Ask HN: Does anybody still FEEL improvements between latest LLMs for coding?. muzani, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 2, 2026. Opus 4.6 and 4.8 debugging against 15K-line logs.
Developer experience 45%
- Unfavorable
Missing `[1m]` on any one of these variables silently limits that model to 200k context, with no warning or error
Bedrock: 1M context (context-1m beta) should auto-enable for capable models. KevinZhao, GitHub user, self-described, Mar 10, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6 on Bedrock through Claude Code, global cross-Region profiles.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.6 tended to over think, and generally get lost in thinking.
Comment on: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus. lukaslalinsky, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 22, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code, against Opus 4.5.
- Favorable
If you give 4.6 a spec, or existing code to implement a feature in, it will ask some pointed questions if there's something unclear in the spec, and then produce a plan and move to implement it.
Comment on: Qwen3.8 Max now ranked as the best overall model by agentic index. tarnith, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 6, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Opus 5 at work.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 if it's important that it actually follow all of your instructions
Comment on: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling. jrs100000, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 20, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Opus 4.8 and Fable.
- Favorable
it worked great up to Opus 4.6
Comment on: Auto mode is now the default in Claude Code. oefrha, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 10, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code with a custom command approval framework.
- Unfavorable
4.6 is much more likely to ask annoying (blocking) questions that it can reasonably figure out on it's own
Comment on: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use. SkyPuncher, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Opus 4.5 on a Max subscription, daily.
- Unfavorable
Claude Opus 4.6 Extended Thinking multi-turn conversation fails - missing thinking.signature field (AWS Bedrock)
[Bug]: Claude Opus 4.6 Extended Thinking multi-turn conversation fails - missing thinking.signature field (AWS Bedrock). DayangLiu, GitHub user, self-described, Jun 5, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 extended thinking on AWS Bedrock in Cherry Studio.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 just seems much more reliable in terms of me asking it to do something, and that to actually happen.
Comment on: Apple's accidental moat: How the "AI Loser" may end up winning. mewpmewp2, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 13, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Sonnet and the best GPT model.
- Favorable
It can talk about sensitive subjects without getting guardrail-whacked.
Comment on: Frontier AI agents violate ethical constraints 30–50% of time, pressured by KPIs. renewiltord, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 10, 2026. Opus 4.6 in its harness, against ChatGPT.
- Unfavorable
medium would never get me good enough results
Comment on: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates. virtualritz, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 7, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code on a Max subscription at high and max effort, adaptive thinking disabled.
- Unfavorable
I have to tell it no semi frequently
Comment on: Code Is Cheap Now, and That Changes Everything. packetlost, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 9, 2026. Opus 4.6 on greenfield and brownfield projects, against Kimi K2.5.
Cost 33%
- Favorable
There is no surcharge for extended context on these two models
Amazon Bedrock Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6 context window is 1M, not 200K. sergical, GitHub user, self-described, Mar 18, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1 (Claude Opus 4.6) on the Bedrock Converse API.
- Unfavorable
# best results, slower, more expensive
Comment on open-weight models against Sonnet. nijave, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 29, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1 (Claude Opus 4.6) on Amazon Bedrock in a Strands Agents devops agent.
- Unfavorable
The gross Opus usage was $37,901.73
$38k AWS Bedrock bill caused by a simple prompt caching miss. Zephyr0x, Hacker News poster, self-described, Apr 28, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 on AWS Bedrock via LiteLLM, from the Droid coding agent.
- Unfavorable
Yeah it's extremely cost-inefficient, but it works.
Comment on: Why Software Factories Fail (or: harness engineering is not enough). 2001zhaozhao, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 23, 2026. Opus 4.6 at 700K to 900K tokens of context.
- Unfavorable
actually worked better for quick bugfixes and reporting back to support. And is much cheaper.
Comment on: SpaceX to buy Cursor for $60B. zpeti, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 16, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Cursor's Composer 2.5.
- Unfavorable
the token usage was excessive to the point that I dropped the subscription for codex
Comment on: Anthropic officially bans using subscription auth for third party use. GorbachevyChase, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 19, 2026. Opus 4.6 on a subscription plan.
- Unfavorable
is best model to use this but it's expensive
Comment on: Show HN: I'm building niche AI agents with OpenClaw (Clawsify). Vanshfin, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 13, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 is about 50% cheaper, while Sonnet 5 is significantly more affordable
Comment on: The real prices of frontier models. Ruslan Ianberdin (ianberdin), Founder & CEO of Playcode, Jul 13, 2026. Opus 4.6 as a default model in Playcode.io, against Opus 4.8 and Sonnet 5.
- Unfavorable
significantly chesper than opus 4.6 for 90% of the quality
Comment on: US holds off blacklisting DeepSeek, more than 100 firms deemed security risks. Bnjoroge, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 18, 2026. Opus 4.6 against GLM 5.2.
- Unfavorable
it is around 1/10th of opus4.6
Comment on: I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit. lumost, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Kimi K2.6 for coding.
- Favorable
I can have Opus 4.6/4.7 running non-stop without hitting quota
Comment on: The real prices of frontier models. ricardobeat, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 13, 2026. Opus 4.6 and 4.7 on a Claude subscription, against Fable.
- Unfavorable
it will happily chew through the entire 5-hour allowance on the first instruction going in endless circles
Comment on: Something is afoot in the land of Qwen. misnome, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 4, 2026. Opus 4.6 on a Claude subscription.
- Unfavorable
I swear it costs me 1/2 of the tokens to achieve the same results
Comment on: Anthropic downgraded cache TTL on March 6th. glerk, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 12, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code against Codex with GPT-5.4.
- Unfavorable
particularly expensive when comparing to other non-reasoning models of similar price
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) on Artificial Analysis.
- Unfavorable
particularly expensive when comparing to other models of similar price
Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 (Max), adaptive reasoning, on Artificial Analysis.
- Unfavorable
each tool call costs ~$1 just for cache reads alone
Comment on: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6. takwatanabe, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 14, 2026. Opus 4.6 at 700K tokens of context.
- Favorable
The delivery of the project justified the 5k
Comment on: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses. lumost, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 23, 2026. Opus 4.6 fast mode on a client project.
- Favorable
Standard pricing now applies across the full 1M window for both models, with no long-context premium.
1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6. Simon Willison, author of Simon Willison's Weblog, self-described, Mar 13, 2026. Opus 4.6 with the 1M-token context window, generally available.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.7 used a median of 282 AI Units versus 401 for Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.7 delivers powerful performance with higher efficiency vs Opus 4.6. Sidharth Srinivasan, Product Manager, Box AI, self-described, Apr 16, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 against Opus 4.7 on the Box Complex Work Evaluation.
- Unfavorable
I have probably wasted 30 request credits, since Opus 4.6 uses 3 each time.
Claude Opus 4.6 constantly hangs. cloudversify, GitHub user, self-described, Mar 11, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 in VS Code Copilot Chat agent mode.
- Favorable
Opus 4.7, 4.8, and 5.5 cost more credits than Opus 4.5/4.6
Opus 4.7, 4.8, and 5.5 cost more credits than Opus 4.5/4.6, and the posted multipliers do not show it. j8412986-sys, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Kiro CLI v3 on a Pro+ account, measured credits per million tokens.
- Unfavorable
your tokens will 'evaporate' 40% faster
Comment on: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates. virtualritz, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 7, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code on a Max subscription at high and max effort, adaptive thinking disabled.
- Favorable
Opus 4.6 actually saves money because you don't have to deal with the constant retries you get with cheaper models.
Opus 4.6 - Out Now (+ Fast Mode)!. Rao Athar, Cursor forum member, self-described, Feb 10, 2026. Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.6 Fast in Cursor on heavy refactoring.
Speed 36%
- Unfavorable
best results, slower, more expensive
Comment on open-weight models against Sonnet. nijave, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 29, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1 (Claude Opus 4.6) on Amazon Bedrock in a Strands Agents devops agent.
- Favorable
Around February, Opus 4.6 was excellent. Smart, fast, proactive.
Comment on: Will It Mythos?. airstrike, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 23, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code from February onward.
- Unfavorable
I only wish Opus 4.6 from earlier this year at a faster inference speed.
Comment on: Claude Sonnet 5. brunooliv, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Opus 4.6 for agent-assisted development.
- Unfavorable
Composer 2.5 worked just as well for me as opus 4.6, and was faster
Comment on: SpaceX to buy Cursor for $60B. zpeti, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 16, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Cursor's Composer 2.5.
- Unfavorable
I asked something and Claude Code would just spin for 15 minutes.
Comment on: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus. lukaslalinsky, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 22, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code, against Opus 4.5.
- Unfavorable
At 43 tokens per second, Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) is notably slow
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) on Artificial Analysis.
- Unfavorable
At 44 tokens per second, Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) is notably slow
Claude Opus 4.6 (Max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 (Max), adaptive reasoning, on Artificial Analysis.
- Favorable
producing great answers fairly fast
Comment on: Qwen3.5 122B and 35B models offer Sonnet 4.5 performance on local computers. mstaoru, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 28, 2026. Opus 4.6 on a deep research question, against Gemini Pro and a local Qwen model.
- Unfavorable
we observed a 40% increase in task completion times
Our early impressions of Claude Opus 4.6. Resolve AI engineering team, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Opus 4.6 tested as a drop-in replacement for Opus 4.5 on Resolve AI's hardest production investigation scenarios.
- Unfavorable
Claude Opus 4.7 completed tasks with a p50 latency of 183 seconds, versus 242 seconds for Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.7 delivers powerful performance with higher efficiency vs Opus 4.6. Sidharth Srinivasan, Product Manager, Box AI, self-described, Apr 16, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 against Opus 4.7 on the Box Complex Work Evaluation.
- Favorable
whoa, opus 4.6 (even with max reasoning) is FAST
Wes Winder on Opus 4.6 speed. Wes Winder, developer who reviews models and coding agents, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Opus 4.6 at max reasoning, first tests against Codex.
- Unfavorable
It is just a tiny bit faster, if at all.
Opus 4.6 - Out Now (+ Fast Mode)!. liquefy, Cursor forum member, self-described, Feb 16, 2026. Opus 4.6 fast mode in Cursor for a full day.
- Favorable
In Claude code it seems to make a difference (2..2.5 speed).
Opus 4.6 - Out Now (+ Fast Mode)!. leoing, Cursor forum member, self-described, Feb 17, 2026. Opus 4.6 fast mode in Cursor and in Claude Code.
Reliability 20%
- Favorable
my takeaway is that API-based eval performance was... about the same
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.7. gertlabs, Hacker News commenter running the Gertlabs eval suite, self-described, Apr 16, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 via the API, resampled on Gertlabs evals.
- Unfavorable
a 14% throttle rate on Haiku and 16% on Opus over the 14 days
16 days, 4 channels, no AWS Bedrock quota fix. Ziva.sh engineering blog, self-described, May 16, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 V1 on Amazon Bedrock via cross-region inference in us-west-2.
- Unfavorable
Then it got lobotomized and it's never been the same after that nerf.
Comment on: Will It Mythos?. airstrike, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 23, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code from February onward.
- Favorable
GLM is more stable like opus 4.6
Comment on: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis. leemoore, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 17, 2026. Opus 4.6 against Opus 4.7, Opus 4.8 and GLM 5.2.
- Unfavorable
Way worse performance than I remember when using Opus 4.6 before it was nerfed.
Comment on: Will It Mythos?. varispeed, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 23, 2026. Opus 4.6 before and after reported changes, against Mythos.
- Unfavorable
has been caught intentionally nerfing a model after release (Opus 4.6)
Comment on: U.S. government will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6. lend000, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 26, 2026. Opus 4.6.
- Unfavorable
the older models (Opus 4.6 in particular) have degraded too
Comment on: I used to love Claude, but the latest models are slowly ruining it. galkk, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 11, 2026. Claude with Opus 4.6 through the year.
- Favorable
claude opus 4.6,7 perform very well.and stable
Comment on: Kimi K3 Is Competitive with Fable; Kimi K3 and Fable Is SoTA. Vivek-KY, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 and 4.7 against Kimi.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.6 also just got dumber. It's dismissive, hand-wavy, jumps to conclusions way too quickly
Comment on: Measuring Claude 4.7's tokenizer costs. aulin, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 17, 2026. Opus 4.6 in April 2026.
- Unfavorable
I've been using Codex Pro since they lobotomized Opus 4.6.
Comment on: Anthropic says OpenClaw-style Claude CLI usage is allowed again. redrove, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 21, 2026. Opus 4.6 against GPT-5.4 xhigh in Codex.
- Unfavorable
Previously, the same setup worked fine throughout August-September 2026 without frequent compaction.
Context compaction triggers too frequently on claude.ai web (Opus 4.6). macjab, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 16, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 on claude.ai web, Max plan, project sessions with preloaded files.
- Unfavorable
Claude Opus 4.6 has shown a noticeable regression in accuracy and reliability
Opus 4.6 regression since ~Sep 16: hallucinating dates and degraded accuracy. adri22235, GitHub user, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 in agentic workflows with Gmail MCP.
- Unfavorable
However, every time, it hangs again.
Claude Opus 4.6 constantly hangs. cloudversify, GitHub user, self-described, Mar 11, 2026. Claude Opus 4.6 in VS Code Copilot Chat agent mode.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.6 failed at the end again and i got the error message
Opus 4.6 keeps failing. Giancarlo1991, GitHub user, self-described, Mar 13, 2026. Opus 4.6 in VS Code Copilot Chat.
- Unfavorable
I, too, noticed the drop in quality a month or so ago.
Comment on: Issue: Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with Feb updates. virtualritz, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 7, 2026. Opus 4.6 in Claude Code on a Max subscription at high and max effort, adaptive thinking disabled.