Claude Opus 4.6 vs o3
Claude Opus 4.6 
o3 Verdict
- Claude Opus 4.6 leads on quality: 63.3 vs 61.6.
- Claude Opus 4.6 is stronger in coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, long context, multimodal, reasoning.
- o3 is stronger in agents & tools, instruction following, maths.
- o3 is 2.9× cheaper ($3.50 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
- o3 streams 2.9× faster (107 vs 37 tokens per second).
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.3 | 61.6 |
| Agents & tools score | 68.8 | 70.3 |
| Coding score | 62.3 | 62.0 |
| Composite score | 69.4 | 54.5 |
| Human preference score | 64.8 | 62.3 |
| Instruction following score | 53.9 | 65.0 |
| Knowledge score | 70.7 | 58.0 |
| Long context score | 65.5 | 63.8 |
| Maths score | 65.7 | 78.6 |
| Multimodal score | 63.6 | 57.9 |
| Reasoning score | 62.6 | 61.5 |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | $3.50 |
| Output speed | 37 tok/s | 107 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 2.4 s | 6.3 s |
| Context window | 1M | 200k |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 94.4% | – |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | 78.7% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 19.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | – |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | – |
| Cybench | 93.0% | – |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | – |
| WeirdML | 77.9% | – |
| APEX-Agents | 32.4% | – |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | – |
| GSO-Bench | 33.3% | – |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.3 | 146.9 |
| LMArena Text | 1497 | 1432 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1441 |
| LMArena Coding | 1546 | 1460 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1537 | – |
| LMArena Vision | 1311 | 1214 |
| AA Intelligence Index | 31.9 | 20.2 |
| IFBench | 53.1% | 71.4% |
| AA-LCR | 78.0% | 74.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | 75.4% | 70.1% |
| AA-Omniscience | 13.7 | -15.6 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 48.5% | 37.1% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 89.6% | 82.7% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 39.9% | 20.1% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 92.1% | 80.7% |
| PRBench Finance | – | 47.7% |
| PRBench Legal | – | 48.6% |
| HiL-Bench | 38.3% | – |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | – |
| MMMU (validation) | – | 82.9% |
| MMMU-Pro (official) | – | 76.4% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 72.4% | 67.6% |
| IFEval (HELM) | – | 86.9% |
| Omni-MATH (HELM) | – | 71.4% |
| WildBench (HELM) | – | 86.1% |
| MMLU-Pro (HELM) | – | 85.9% |
| GPQA Diamond (HELM) | – | 75.3% |
| HELM Capabilities mean | – | 81.1% |
| Aider Polyglot | – | 81.3% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | 58.4% |
| SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold) | 75.6% | 58.4% |
| BFCL Overall | – | 63.0% |
Data as of 2026-09-12. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 4.6 vs o3: questions
- Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than o3?
- Claude Opus 4.6 leads on quality: 63.3 vs 61.6. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead overall as of 2026-09-12, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than o3 for coding?
- Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in coding (62 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than o3 for agentic tasks?
- o3 scores higher in agentic tasks (70 vs 69 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or o3?
- o3 is cheaper: $3.50 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or o3?
- o3 streams faster: 107 against 37 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M against 200k tokens.