Cost
$5.86per task
Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted. Run at max effort.
Claude Opus model by Anthropic
Claude Opus 5
An earlier Claude Opus release for coding, agents, and professional work.
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 5. Current:Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude FableAnthropic's Claude family for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.Claude Fable 5.1
- Offered in
- 4 products
- Made by
- Anthropic
- Family
- Claude Opus, version 5
- Released
- Jul 24, 2026 Legacy
- In its family
- Release 5 of 6 in Claude Opus. The newest is Claude Opus 5.5.
Strengths and weaknesses
Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Claude Opus 5
- Claude Opus 5
Suggested comparisons
The models a buyer weighs against Claude Opus 5, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Claude Opus 5.
Claude Opus 5
Ranked against the 40 current releases on this chart, Claude Opus 5 ranks first of 2 on Computer use, 5th of 39 on Hard reasoning and 5th of 31 on Factuality. It ranks lowest on Long context, 31st of 39. Instruction following: 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 5This pageResults on 11 of 12 axes$5 / $2553 tokens/sFirst token in 69 s
Prices and speeds read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
Claude Opus 5 on each axis11 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 553.5%
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 556.4%
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 585.6%
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 593.9%
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 554.9%
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 556.6%
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 577.7%The OSWorld team's own run at max effort, with its batch tool and a 500-step budget. It fully completed 44.33% of tasks.
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 579.3%
The share of MMMU-Pro's college-level questions over charts, diagrams and photos the model answers correctly.
MMMU-Pro, overall accuracy, no tools
- Claude Opus 584.7%
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 560.9%Hallucination rate 60.8% 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 573.7%With reasoning on, SpeechMap counted 22.3% of requests denied and 3.5% evaded. With reasoning off, the model completes 59.1%.0.5% 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 5Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Claude Opus 5, with where each figure sits among the 41 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.
Speed
52tokens a second
Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at max effort.
- First token
- 71 s
- Whole answer
- 81 s
Capacity
1Mtokens
Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.
- Reads
- Text, Images
Quality
50.8of 100
Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at max effort.
- GDPval knowledge work
- 1,722 Elo
- Terminal-Bench 4.0
- 49.0%
- Epoch Capabilities Index
- 164
Hallucination
60.8%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
- 60.9%
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 5: Cached input and Max output.
Every value with its benchmark, run and source
| Axis | Benchmark and setting | Claude Opus 5 | Run | Source | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic coding | Terminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness | 53.5% | Claude Opus 5Effort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent. | Vals.ai | Oct 24, 2026 |
| Code | SciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 56.4% | Claude Opus 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Math | FrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 85.6% | Effort: max. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Jul 24, 2026 |
| Science | GPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 93.9% | Effort: max. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Jul 24, 2026 |
| Hard reasoning | Humanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools | 54.9% | Claude Opus 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Tool use | AutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run | 56.6% | Claude Opus 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Computer use | OSWorld 2.1Partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release. The OSWorld team's own run at max effort, with its batch tool and a 500-step budget. It fully completed 44.33% of tasks. | 77.7% | Claude Opus 5Effort: max. Harness: OSWorld team harness.Not drawn: Anthropic 70.6% in its maker's own harness, Jul 24, 2026. SourceNot drawn: Anthropic 75.4% in its maker's own harness, Sep 1, 2026. SourceNot drawn: OpenAI 70.2% in another lab's harness, Sep 22, 2026. SourceNot drawn: Anthropic 74% in its maker's own harness, Sep 22, 2026. Source | OSWorld team | Oct 15, 2026 |
| Long context | AA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 79.3% | Claude Opus 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Multimodal | MMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools | 84.7% | Claude Opus 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Factuality | AA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 60.9%Hallucination rate 60.8% in the same run (lower is better) | Claude Opus 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Answers in full | SpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. With reasoning on, SpeechMap counted 22.3% of requests denied and 3.5% evaded. With reasoning off, the model completes 59.1%. | 73.7%0.5% 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 | Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 |
Price and speed
- Claude Opus 5 lists at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. Anthropic pricing, Oct 26, 2026.
- Claude Opus 5, at max effort, writes 53.3 output tokens per second on Anthropic's API, and its first token arrives 69 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 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 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 Sonnet 5 | 10.6% | 54.3% | 65.6% | 80.3% | 41.3% | 36.5% | 57%Reported by Anthropic | 82% | 77.3% | 40.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5 | 41.4% | 61% | 87% | 85.9% | 55.5% | 54.1% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 65.4% | 64.8% | 63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 23.2% | 54.4% | 80% | 91% | 48.7% | 45.6% | 54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 77.7% | Not yet published | 48.8% | 67.4% | 62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Not yet published | 54.5% | 70.2% | 86.4% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 78.7% | 78.8% | 48.9% | 70.2% | 58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 3%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 50.1% | 71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 78.8% | 33.6% | 20.1% | 41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 73.3% | 40.9% | 35.8% | 56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 66% | 88.4% | 39.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78% | 75.4% | 47% | 59.9% | 37.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude 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 5 beyond the twelve chart axes, each with the run it comes from and its publisher. These stay separate measures; none is folded into the chart.
| Measure | Claude Opus 5 | Run | Source | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specs and access | ||||
| Context windowThe most tokens one request can hold, as the maker states it. Size alone says nothing about how well the model uses a long input; the Long context axis measures that. | 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 26, 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 26, 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 | |
| Cost | ||||
| Answer tokens per taskLower is better. Answer tokens per Intelligence Index task, reasoning excluded. | 29,719 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $3.16 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.76 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $4.05 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $1.81 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $1.07 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per taskLower is better. What one Intelligence Index task cost AA at list price, input, cache, output and reasoning tokens together. | $5.86 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost to run the indexLower is better. What the whole Intelligence Index run cost AA at list price. The runs cost from tens of dollars to about $13,000, so the axis is log from $10 to $100,000. | $7,275 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is. | 72,511 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task. | 42,793 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Speed | ||||
| End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt. | 81 s | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs. | 71 s | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. | 52 tokens/s | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Time per taskLower is better. Wall-clock seconds per Intelligence Index task. Runs take from about 15 s to about 33 min, so the axis is log from 1 s to 10,000 s. | 853 s | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 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. | 71 s | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 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. | 60.8% | Max effort | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly. | 60.9% | Max effort | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100. | 37.1 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 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. | 59.9% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Aug 10, 2026 |
| Knowledge work | ||||
| AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval. | 1,657 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| AnalystAgent (AA run)AA's AnalystAgent score for analyst workflows. | 53.8% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| APEX-Agents (maintainers)APEX-Agents pass@1 from the maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 65.8% | Max effort | Mercor (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes. | 21.6% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval. | 1,722 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| MLCR (AA run)AA's MLCR overall score for long, multi-document reading. | 11.1% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Vending-Bench 2Vending-Bench 2 final balance of a simulated vending business run by the model, as Epoch AI republishes it. | $11,182 | Andon Labs (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| Capability beyond the chart | ||||
| AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy. | 79.3% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 2,165 | High effort | Sakana AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| ARC-AGI-2ARC-AGI-2 score from the ARC Prize maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 90.4% | Max effort | ARC Prize Foundation (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 43% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Oct 13, 2026 |
| CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run. | 29.1% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| CursorBenchCursorBench score from Cursor, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 46.6% | Max effort | Cursor (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| DeepSWEDeepSWE pass@1, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 73.6% | Max effort | Datacurve (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 97.6% | Max effort | Redwood Research (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym (AA run)AA's EnterpriseOps-Gym score for enterprise operations agents. | 47.5% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch Capabilities Index: Epoch AI's composite across its benchmark hub, with its confidence interval. | 164 | Claude Opus 5 | Epoch AI | Oct 26, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tier 4 research math problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 73.2% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jul 24, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 85.6% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jul 24, 2026 |
| FrontierSWEFrontierSWE score, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 52.0% | Max effort | FrontierSWE (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA run)GPQA Diamond accuracy in AA's run. | 93.2% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. | 93.9% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jul 24, 2026 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run. | 54.9% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points. | 50.8 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 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. | 63.3 | Max effort | Redwood Research (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| MMMU-Pro (AA run)Multimodal understanding accuracy on MMMU-Pro in AA's run. | 84.7% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 59% | 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. | 98.9% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jul 24, 2026 |
| ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it. | 99% | Max effort | Vals AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run. | 56.4% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| tau-Banking (AA run)AA's tau-Banking tool-use score. | 42.1% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness. | 49.0% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Terminal-Bench Science (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench Science tasks solved in AA's harness. | 28.6% | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| WebDev ArenaWebDev Arena score from human pairwise votes on web builds, with its 95% interval, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 1,687 | Max effort | LMArena (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| WeirdML v3, best runWeirdML v3 maximum performance across runs, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 32.5% | Extra-high effort | Håvard Tveit Ihle (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Domains | ||||
| EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points. | 60.8 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points. | 54 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points. | 54.9 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Healthcare and medicalArtificial Analysis capability score for healthcare and medical questions, 0 to 100 points. | 46.7 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points. | 57.3 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points. | 56.6 | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
Routes, prices and uptime
Where Claude Opus 5 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 5 today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon Bedrock | Available | anthropic.claude-opus-5 | us./eu./au./in./global. profiles; Active, EOL not sooner than July 24, 2027; tiers: Standard and Batch (Priority, Flex, Reserved not supported); context / output 1M / 128K | Amazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Claude Opus 5 |
| Claude Code | Available | claude-opus-5 | By full model name on the Anthropic API, or provider ARN, version or deployment name; aliases resolve per provider; takes low, medium, high, xhigh and max effort levels (page read Oct 28, 2026) | Anthropic |
| Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) | Available | claude-opus-5 | Claude API model IDs (dated IDs use a hyphen) | Anthropic, Claude Opus 5Anthropic, Claude Models on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) |
| Claude Platform on AWS | Available | claude-opus-5 | Same ID as the Claude API | Anthropic |
| Cursor | Available | available, hidden by default (fast as claude-opus-5-fast); Premium plan or higher, API list price | Anysphere (Cursor) | |
| Databricks | Available | databricks-claude-opus-5 | available | Databricks, Databricks-hosted inferenceDatabricks, Detailed list of models supported by Databricks Foundation Model APIs |
| The maker's own API | Available | claude-opus-5 | context / max output 1M / 128K; status per deprecations table; fast mode research preview at US$10/US$50 with beta header | Anthropic, Claude Opus 5Anthropic, Model deprecationsAnthropic, Fast mode |
| GitHub Copilot | Available | not statedpicker label Claude Opus 5 | available (GA) | GitHub |
| GitHub Models | Retired | not applicableservice retired | service retired July 30, 2026 | GitHub, GitHub Models |
| Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed) | Available | claude-opus-5 (GA) | retirement not sooner than Jan 24, 2027; input / output 1,000,000 / 128,000 | Google, Anthropic's Claude on Google Cloud modelsGoogle, Anthropic's Claude Opus 5 on Google CloudAnthropic |
| Microsoft Foundry | Available | claude-opus-5 | deployment name defaults to model ID; hosted on Azure and Anthropic; context 1M; no Message Batches API | AnthropicMicrosoft Learn |
| OpenCode | Available | claude-opus-5 | OpenCode Zen gateway, Anthropic Messages endpoint | Anomaly (OpenCode), ModelsOpenCode (Anomaly) |
| OpenRouter | Available | anthropic/claude-opus-5 | context / max completion 1,000,000 / 128,000 | OpenRouter |
| Snowflake Cortex | Available | claude-opus-5 | Regions: Cross Cloud (Any Region); AWS US (Cross-Region); AWS EU (Cross-Region); AWS AU (Cross-Region). Context 1,000,000; maximum output 128,000 tokens. | Snowflake |
| Windsurf / Devin | Available | claude-opus-5-highclaude-opus-5-high-fastclaude-opus-5-lowclaude-opus-5-low-fastclaude-opus-5-maxclaude-opus-5-max-fastclaude-opus-5-mediumclaude-opus-5-medium-fastclaude-opus-5-xhighclaude-opus-5-xhigh-fast | available (plus Fast variants) | Cognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), AI ModelsCognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), Compliance and Availability |
Not offered on 1 route: Antigravity.
3 routes do not say: Codex, Gemini CLI and Grok Build.
What each of these 4 routes' pages say, with sources
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antigravity | Not offered | not listed; Gemini CLI serves Gemini models only | ||
| Codex | Not stated | Codex model docs list OpenAI models only | ||
| Gemini CLI | Not stated | Region, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages. | ||
| Grok Build | Not stated | Grok Build pages name only grok-4.7 | xAI (SpaceXSI) |
Prices by route
The lowest standard rate is Claude API, at $5 / $25 per million input and output tokens. US dollars per million tokens, as each route lists them, one row per route and rate plan, cheapest standard rate first after the maker's own; a blended rate states its mix.
| Route | Standard, in / out | Cache read | Other rates | Source, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude APIMakerLowest | $5 / $25 | Fast mode $10 / $50, fast mode, research preview | Anthropic, Oct 26, 2026Anthropic, Oct 28, 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 26, 2026 |
Lineup
Anthropic's 14 releases in 4 families, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. Claude Opus 5 is lit.
CurrentLegacyThis model
Price is the list price per 1M tokens, input / output. Speed is median output tokens per second. Bars share one scale across the lineup. Read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
Claude Haiku
Anthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.
2 releases
Claude Sonnet
Anthropic's balanced Claude model family.
4 releases
Claude Opus
Anthropic's high-capability Claude model family.
6 releases
- 4.5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed58.8 tok/s
- 4.6Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed47.7 tok/s
- 4.7Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed54.7 tok/s
- 4.8Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed65.9 tok/s
- This page5Legacy. 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 5 today: 3 subscriptions and 1 API.
Through a subscription
- OpenCode+27 PositiveOpen-source, MIT-licensed coding agent that edits code and runs commands from a terminal UI, desktop app, web client, or editor extension.
- Claude Code+75 Strong positiveAnthropic's agentic coding product for terminal and IDE workflows.
- Cursor+11 MixedAI coding agent and code editor for writing, reviewing, and shipping software, with agents in the editor, the terminal, and the cloud.
Through an API
Comparisons
GILD comparisons that name Claude Opus 5, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.
- Amazon Bedrock vs Claude API: Buying Claude Through AWS or From AnthropicCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
- Amazon Bedrock vs Microsoft Foundry: Which Cloud AI Platform Fits Your Stack?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
- Claude API vs Gemini API: Which Model Platform Fits Your Workloads?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
- Claude API vs OpenAI API: Top Scores or Lower Cost per Task?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
- DeepSeek API vs Claude API: Price per Task or Controls and Residency?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
- DeepSeek API vs OpenRouter: Buy DeepSeek From DeepSeek, or From Another Host?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
- Gemini API vs Amazon Bedrock: One Model Family or a Model Marketplace?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
- Gemini API vs Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform: Which Route to Gemini?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
- Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform vs Microsoft Foundry: Google Cloud or Azure for Models and AgentsCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
- LiteLLM vs OpenRouter: Run Your Own Gateway or Rent One?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
- OpenRouter vs Portkey: Rent Model Access or Run a Governed Gateway?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
- Together AI vs OpenRouter: One Open-Model Host or a Router Across HostsCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 5
What practitioners report
Strongest on Long context, weakest on Reliability.
Each figure is the share of accounts naming Claude Opus 5 that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.
| Axis | Favorable | Accounts |
|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency. | 50% | 6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors |
| Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track. | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors | 3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors |
| Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs. | 67% | 4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors |
| Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers. | 25% | 3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors |
| CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save. | 43% | 3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors |
| SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput. | 60% | 3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors |
| ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked. | 13% | 1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors |
Every model on these seven axes
| Axis | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Claude Opus 5.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Opus 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 | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 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 | 56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors | 68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors | 67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors | 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 | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 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 | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 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 | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 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 | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | 64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors | 40%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 | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 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 | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 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 | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | 8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors | 40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors | 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 | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 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 | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors | 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 | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 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 | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | 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 46 accounts behind Claude Opus 5's figures
GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter and the web for accounts that name Claude Opus 5.
Quality and reasoning 50%
- Favorable
Claude Opus 5 (Max) is amongst the leading models in intelligence
Claude Opus 5 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 5 at max effort on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
- Unfavorable
I've eval'd these models for weeks against Gemini 3.8, Kimi K3 and Opus 5, and DeepSeek absolutely wins these evals
Comment on Hacker News. pimeys, Hacker News commenter who prices agent work per token for customers, self-described, Sep 16, 2026. Opus 5 in the commenter's own agent evals against Gemini 3.8, Kimi K3 and DeepSeek.
- Unfavorable
Opus 5 was the laziest since 4.6 by far, often giving up after ten or fifteen minutes
Comment on Hacker News. stymaar, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 5, 2026. Opus 5 on long coding tasks.
- Unfavorable
Opus 5 was struggling, Opus 5.5 is doing really well
Comment on Hacker News. askjdfksdbfhk, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Opus 5 on a deep learning research project of moderate complexity.
- Favorable
Claude Opus 5 and 5.5 are very good at implementing optimizations
Comment on Hacker News. entrope, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Claude Opus 5 and Opus 5.5 implementing performance optimizations.
- Favorable
A simple prompt goes through research, design, verification, review and self-corrects constantly
Comment on Hacker News. sph87, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 12, 2026. Opus 5 in agentic coding workflows.
- Favorable
I just described the bugs and it fixed them. This was just Opus 5.
Comment on Hacker News. SyzygyRhythm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 10, 2026. Opus 5 fixing bugs in a reverse engineering project.
- Favorable
I had Opus 5 review pdf schematics of a (human-designed) PCB that wasn't working right, and it found the root of both problems
Comment on Hacker News. bizrod, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 5, 2026. Opus 5 reviewing PDF schematics of a PCB.
- Unfavorable
They made gross errors all over the schematic
Comment on Hacker News. the__alchemist, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 17, 2026. Opus 5, Astra and Sol checking a PCB schematic.
- Unfavorable
Opus 5 has been absolutely horrible last couple of days, writing essays of code and comments, fixing one thing, breaking another
Comment on Hacker News. zerof1l, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 25, 2026. Opus 5 for coding, a month after release.
- Favorable
I will eat my hat if either one can come close to Opus 5 in actual real life "long-horizon software engineering" tasks
Comment on Hacker News. caconym_, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Opus 5 against recent Gemini Flash models on long-horizon software engineering.
- Unfavorable
Opus 5 is not the best general-purpose code reviewer we tested
Claude Opus 5: Code Review Benchmarks. Hendrik Krack, CodeRabbit, self-described, Jul 24, 2026. Opus 5 at medium, high and x-high effort in CodeRabbit's review harness and on agentic build work.
- Favorable
It very clearly has a good grasp of WebGl, and of what impacts page loading times and rendering speed
Comment on Hacker News. onion2k, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 2, 2026. Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 in Claude Code converting a game from three.js to ogl.js.
Tool use and structured output Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors
- Favorable
returns the typed response on us. Opus 5
fix(aws): restore structured output for Claude 5 on Bedrock. JonZeolla, GitHub contributor to langchain-aws, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Claude Opus 5 on Bedrock through Converse with a JSON schema, us., global., eu. and au. profiles.
- Unfavorable
good at orchestrating subagents they are trained to use, but worse as an agent within an external multi-agent orchestration system or just in turn-taking with humans. That was my experience with Opus 5
Comment on Hacker News. notduckrabbit, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 11, 2026. Opus 5 inside an external multi-agent orchestration system.
- Favorable
On larger agentic tasks, Opus 5 coordinated hundreds of background agents and showed much better design judgment than Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 5: Code Review Benchmarks. Hendrik Krack, CodeRabbit, self-described, Jul 24, 2026. Opus 5 at medium, high and x-high effort in CodeRabbit's review harness and on agentic build work.
- Favorable
3 claude-opus-5 (xhigh) 85.80 ± 2.10
MCP Atlas - Scale Labs Leaderboard. Scale Labs, MCP Atlas tool-use leaderboard, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. claude-opus-5 at xhigh effort on Scale's MCP Atlas tool-use benchmark.
- Favorable
It was able to drive Claude Code's integrated browser to measure the impact of changes
Comment on Hacker News. onion2k, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 2, 2026. Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 in Claude Code converting a game from three.js to ogl.js.
Long context 67%
- Favorable
Opus has noisier data than Sonnet but is similarly close to linear
Long-context latency scales quadratically for GPT-5.6 but nearly linearly for Claude 5. Jason Li, researcher at Epoch AI, Sep 8, 2026. Claude Opus 5 through the API, reasoning disabled, contexts from 50k to 900k tokens.
- Favorable
Agentic workflows can run for days without stopping, without losing the thread or devolving into slop
Comment on Hacker News. sph87, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 12, 2026. Opus 5 in agentic coding workflows.
- Unfavorable
The context size is still not nearly as big as it needs to be to store all the code an enterprise needs
Comment on Hacker News. mcny, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 26, 2026. Opus 5 building a small project.
- Favorable
Opus 5 last week got to around 700k before I compacted between prompts, but also gave good performance
Comment on Hacker News. birdsongs, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 14, 2026. Opus 5 in long autonomous coding sessions.
- Favorable
I've been pushing the context window well into the 400-600k+ token range lately (mostly Opus 5)
Comment on Hacker News. arcanemachiner, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 18, 2026. Opus 5 with sessions in the 400-600k token range.
- Unfavorable
opus 5 came by default with 200k context and 1M gated behind usage tokens, auto-compaction by default, and it keeps telling you to clear and start from scratch all the time
Comment on Hacker News. lucas_t_a, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 6, 2026. Opus 5 in Claude Code with default settings.
- Favorable
I've had it running 8h+ of non-stop optimizations
Comment on Hacker News. ricardobeat, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 3, 2026. Opus 5 in Claude Code on long optimization runs.
Developer experience 25%
- Unfavorable
it generated 140M tokens, which is very verbose in comparison to the median of 87M
Claude Opus 5 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 5 at max effort on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
- Unfavorable
I was unable to use it in our account without having to enable the provider_data_share setting
Comment on Hacker News. cjonas, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 24, 2026. Claude Opus 5 on Amazon Bedrock.
- Unfavorable
any gap in specificity in my statement of a task would lead Opus 5 to invent an interpretation to fill the gap
Comment on Hacker News. RGS1811, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. Opus 5 in a coding agent, fixing a failing CI unit test.
- Unfavorable
I think Opus 5 was capable enough but spoke in riddles so you lost confidence quickly
Comment on Hacker News. slaser79, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 3, 2026. Opus 5 in Claude Code as an orchestration model.
- Unfavorable
lots of people moved away from Opus 5 because of it's awful English
Comment on Hacker News. nl, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 17, 2026. Opus 5 for knowledge work.
- Unfavorable
I often find Opus 5 too verbose
Comment on Hacker News. osr00, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 19, 2026. Opus 5 in Claude Code.
- Favorable
I found that Opus 5 is finally aware from the go that it is started in a specific sandbox
Comment on Hacker News. rplnt, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 4, 2026. Opus 5 in a sandboxed coding agent.
- Unfavorable
Opus 5 feels like it needs to present itself as smarter than it is, pushes back on the user
Comment on Hacker News. accrual, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 14, 2026. Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 for quick one-shot work.
- Unfavorable
the madness that is opus 5's extremely disorganized and verbose output
Comment on Hacker News. rtrann, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 27, 2026. Opus 5 with Claude output styles.
- Favorable
Plan mode has become pointless since Opus 5 came out, they know when to switch between planning and execution now
Comment on Hacker News. ricardobeat, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 3, 2026. Opus 5 in Claude Code on long optimization runs.
- Unfavorable
Opus 5 consistently comes at or near the top, but outputs constant unreadable jibberish
Comment on Hacker News. cameronh90, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 26, 2026. Opus 5 on benchmarks and in real use.
- Unfavorable
I forgot how awful using Opus 5 directly is
Comment on Hacker News. nijave, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 14, 2026. Opus 5 used directly after hitting a Fable weekly limit.
- Favorable
It takes time to clarify the goal, offers several credible approaches, and handles open-ended projects without rushing into the first solution.
Claude Opus 5: Code Review Benchmarks. Hendrik Krack, CodeRabbit, self-described, Jul 24, 2026. Opus 5 at medium, high and x-high effort in CodeRabbit's review harness and on agentic build work.
Cost 43%
- Unfavorable
but particularly expensive when comparing to other models of similar price
Claude Opus 5 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 5 at max effort on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
- Unfavorable
If Kimi was about 30% of the price of Opus 5 for the same quality
Comment on Hacker News. pimeys, Hacker News commenter who prices agent work per token for customers, self-described, Sep 16, 2026. Opus 5 in the commenter's own agent evals against Gemini 3.8, Kimi K3 and DeepSeek.
- Favorable
Opus 5 is just as good for this tbh and cheaper
Comment on Hacker News. kodefreeze, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Opus 5 generating 3D models for an RTS game.
- Favorable
A Claude 20x sub running Sonnet 5/Opus 5 and light Fable usage gets me through the month
Comment on Hacker News. halfmatthalfcat, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 18, 2026. Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 on a Claude 20x subscription.
- Unfavorable
poor token efficiency of Opus 5
Comment on Hacker News. viccis, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Opus 5 on a $20 Claude subscription.
- Unfavorable
I maxed out my 200$ Claude plan with 10b token on Opus 5
Comment on Hacker News. impulser_, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Opus 5 on a $200 Claude plan.
- Favorable
Opus 5 on low is faster, cheaper
Comment on Hacker News. datadrivenangel, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 24, 2026. Opus 5 at low effort, against Sonnet 5 at high effort.
- Unfavorable
For every review call, Opus 5 reads about 50% more and writes about 65% more than the frontier models in our baseline
Claude Opus 5: Code Review Benchmarks. Hendrik Krack, CodeRabbit, self-described, Jul 24, 2026. Opus 5 at medium, high and x-high effort in CodeRabbit's review harness and on agentic build work.
Speed 60%
- Unfavorable
At 52 tokens per second, Claude Opus 5 (Max) is notably slow
Claude Opus 5 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 5 at max effort on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
- Unfavorable
Despite this improvement, Opus still remained significantly noisier than other models.
Long-context latency scales quadratically for GPT-5.6 but nearly linearly for Claude 5. Jason Li, researcher at Epoch AI, Sep 8, 2026. Claude Opus 5 through the API, reasoning disabled, contexts from 50k to 900k tokens.
- Unfavorable
The time-to-first-token seems dramatically better in Claude Code compared to Fable 5.1/Opus 5
Comment on Hacker News. nr378, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 26, 2026. Opus 5 in Claude Code, against Opus 5.5 and Fable 5.1.
- Favorable
Opus 5 on low is faster, cheaper, and better than Sonnet 5 on high
Comment on Hacker News. datadrivenangel, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 24, 2026. Opus 5 at low effort, against Sonnet 5 at high effort.
- Favorable
Claude Code Opus 5 can one-shot a script in 15 seconds that would have taken me 45 minutes to write
Comment on Hacker News. ryandvm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. Opus 5 in Claude Code at work.
- Favorable
For quick one-shot type work I don't mind using Opus/Sonnet 5. They're good and fast
Comment on Hacker News. accrual, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 14, 2026. Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 for quick one-shot work.
- Unfavorable
It was still slower and less efficient than Fable 5
Claude Opus 5: Code Review Benchmarks. Hendrik Krack, CodeRabbit, self-described, Jul 24, 2026. Opus 5 at medium, high and x-high effort in CodeRabbit's review harness and on agentic build work.
Reliability 13%
- Unfavorable
the week before the release Opus 5 started hallucinating (long loop and waste of token for single tasks)
Comment on Hacker News. tebrun, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 3, 2026. Opus 5 on coding tasks in the week before Opus 5.5 shipped.
- Unfavorable
Now Opus 5 is down. These two issues are really testing my patience.
Comment on Hacker News. eis, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Opus 5 during the September 3 Anthropic error incident.
- Unfavorable
Opus 5 and to a lesser extent Fable 5 have clearly been quantised
Comment on Hacker News. MyFirstSass, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 1, 2026. Opus 5 on Claude subscriptions and the API.
- Unfavorable
When first released, Opus 5 worked well; now it's crap.
Comment on Hacker News. zerof1l, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 25, 2026. Opus 5 for coding, a month after release.
- Unfavorable
I was using Opus 5 and now I'm forced to switch to Sonnet 5
Comment on Hacker News. damsta, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Opus 5 in Claude Code during the September 3 error incident.
- Unfavorable
Opus 5.5 is being served under opus 5 right now
Comment on Hacker News. prodigycorp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Opus 5 in the days before the Opus 5.5 release.
- Unfavorable
Opus 5 is the least reliable frontier-class model in the market
Comment on Hacker News. rxyz, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 26, 2026. Opus 5.
- Favorable
The page is currently tracking Opus 5, which was released July 24 and has not seen any updates since.
Comment on Hacker News. ricardobeat, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Opus 5 on the MarginLab Claude Code SWE-Bench-Pro tracker.