BenchLeader

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Step 5 Preview

Full profiles: Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) and Step 5 Preview (StepFun): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 10 sources

As of 14 Nov 2026, Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead of Step 5 Preview on quality (62.6 vs 54.3 on the BenchLeader Index), but Step 5 Preview is 7.0× cheaper at $1.43 vs $10.00 per 1M tokens blended. Claude Opus 4.6 leads in every category we measure both in. Step 5 Preview streams 3×+ faster.

Key facts (as of 14 Nov 2026)

  • Claude Opus 4.6 scores 62.6 on the BenchLeader Index and Step 5 Preview scores 54.3 (BenchLeader, 14 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Opus 4.6 costs $10.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 14 Nov 2026).
  • Step 5 Preview costs $1.43 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 14 Nov 2026).
  • Step 5 Preview streams 3×+ faster than Claude Opus 4.6 (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 14 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 1 benchmarks both models have, Step 5 Preview leads 1 (BenchLeader, 14 Nov 2026).

Which to pick for…

The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.

Use casePickWhyConfidence
CodingClaude Opus 4.664 vs 50 category score; Vibe Code Bench v1.1 53.5% vs 70.4%High
MathsClaude Opus 4.665 vs 60 category scoreMedium
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.676 vs 52 category scoreHigh
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.662 vs 54 category scoreHigh
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Step 5 Preview has an Arena rating (63 category score)Not comparable
Lowest costStep 5 Preview$1.43 vs $10.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.071 vs $0.400–
Fastest first answerClaude Opus 4.61.1 s (Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking)) vs 24.3 s (Step 5 Preview) to the first answer token–
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking) leads on quality: 62.6 vs 54.3.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking) is stronger in coding, knowledge, maths, reasoning.
  • Step 5 Preview is 7.0× cheaper ($1.43 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
  • Step 5 Preview streams 3.7× faster (133 vs 36 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecClaude Opus 4.6Step 5 Preview
DeveloperAnthropicStepFun
Released5 Feb 202618 Sep 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,000,000
Compared atClaude Opus 4.6 (thinking)Step 5 Preview
Open weightsNoYes
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$5.00 / $25.00 / $0.500$1.00 / $2.70 / $0.105

Category by category

Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.

CategoryClaude Opus 4.6 (thinking)Step 5 PreviewLeader
Reasoning75.651.7Claude Opus 4.6
Coding63.949.9Claude Opus 4.6
Agents & tools–49.7not comparable
Maths65.360.1Claude Opus 4.6
Knowledge62.353.7Claude Opus 4.6
Human preference–63.1not comparable
Multimodal–59.3not comparable
Long context–69.0not comparable
Composite–38.3not comparable

On one chart

Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.

2550 avg75ReasoningCodingMathsKnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6, Reasoning: 75.6Claude Opus 4.6, Coding: 63.9Claude Opus 4.6, Maths: 65.3Claude Opus 4.6, Knowledge: 62.3Step 5 Preview, Reasoning: 51.7Step 5 Preview, Coding: 49.9Step 5 Preview, Maths: 60.1Step 5 Preview, Knowledge: 53.7

Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Agents & tools, Instruction following, Long context, Multimodal, Human preference.

Model, click to add or removeIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 1 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.6 leads 0, Step 5 Preview leads 1. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 4.6 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Opus 4.6 (thinking)Step 5 PreviewLeader
BenchLeader Index62.654.3Claude Opus 4.6
Arena Text1503†1449Claude Opus 4.6

Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).

Price, speed and latency

List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.

MeasureClaude Opus 4.6 (thinking)Step 5 Preview
Blended price per 1M tokens$10.00$1.43
Input / output per 1M$5.00 / $25.00$1.00 / $2.70
Cached input per 1M$0.500$0.105
Price per task: chat reply$0.0095$0.0012
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.075$0.014
Price per task: code edit$0.068$0.010
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.400$0.071
Price per task: structured extraction$0.015$0.0025
Agentic coding session, input mostly cached$0.198$0.030
Cost per benchmark task (AA Index)–$2.35
Output tokens per task (AA Index)–113k
Of which reasoning–80k
Time per task (AA Index)–14 min
Output speed36 tok/s133 tok/s
Time to first answer1.1 s24.3 s
Time to a complete answer–57.4 s

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking) scores 62.6 and takes 1 s to its first answer token; Claude Opus 4.6 (high) scores 62.5 in 1 s, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 62.1 in 1 s. Step 5 Preview scores 54.3 and takes 24 s to its first answer token. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.

Every benchmark

168 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.

MetricPublisherClaude Opus 4.6 (thinking)Step 5 Preview
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader62.654.3
Coding scoreBenchLeader63.949.9
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader62.353.7
Maths scoreBenchLeader65.360.1
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader75.651.7
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader–49.7
Composite scoreBenchLeader–38.3
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–63.1
Long context scoreBenchLeader–69.0
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader–59.3
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$10.00$1.43
Output speedBenchLeader36 tok/s133 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader1.1 s24.3 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub90.5%†–
Humanity's Last ExamScale AI / CAIS19.0%†–
SimpleBenchSimpleBench67.6%†–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1526†1477
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench–83.8%
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench88.7%†–
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis84.0%†–
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis19.1%†46.5%
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–24.3%
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI89.7%–
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark83.6%–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize94.0%†–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize69.2%†–
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize0.5%†–
CritPtArtificial Analysis2.8%†20.9%
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis–32.5%
MysteryMechanismVals AI–18.5%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub21.0%†–
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub15.0%†–
CL-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub20.7%†–
CL-bench LifeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub13.6%†–
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub55.8%†–
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub91.2%†–
ForecastBenchForecastBench63.1%†–
Coding
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub78.7%†–
Show all 168 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Opus 4.6 (thinking)Step 5 Preview
Coding
SciCodeSciCode–58.9%
WeirdMLWeirdML77.9%†–
FrontierCodeCognition26.6%†–
GSO-BenchGSO-Bench33.3%†–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1547†1505
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)1537†1573†
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench–67.6%
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench78.2%†–
LiveCodeBenchVals AI84.7%–
IOIVals AI–38.1%
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI78.2%–
SWE-Bench ProScale AI SEAL51.9%–
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)SWE-bench75.6%†–
SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold)SWE-bench75.6%†–
Code MigrationVals AI–39.0%
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI–47.0%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI–40.8%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI53.5%70.4%
SWE-Bench Pro (private)Scale AI SEAL51.9%–
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL33.3%†–
SWE Atlas: RefactoringScale AI SEAL35.6%†–
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL36.7%†–
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub33.3%†–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub996.5†–
AlgoTuneAlgoTune1.5†–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis–33.3%
Design Arena WebsiteDesign Arena1278–
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–38.4%
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis–12.0%
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench79.8%†–
CybenchCybench93.0%†–
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS4.2%†–
APEX-AgentsMercor46.3%†–
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–-3.7
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench–19.4%
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench–24.8%
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench49.0%†–
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis48.5%†–
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis84.8%†–
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL76.8%†–
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL38.3%†–
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench27.3%†–
GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised scoreArtificial Analysis–54.3%
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis–1591
ITBench SRE (AA)Artificial Analysis–55.6%
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis–35.0%
APEX-Agents (AA)Artificial Analysis33.0%†38.0%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI–50.7%
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI–58.9%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI–12.9%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI–9.2%
Legal Research BenchVals AI–40.4%
SREBenchVals AI–0.4%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI–27.3%
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)Vals AI58.4%–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI–31.8%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI–2.9%
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)1222†–
DeepResearch BenchDeepResearch Bench55.3%†–
METR Time HorizonsMETR78.9%†–
GBAEvalEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub44.1%†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs8017.6†–
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis–51.0%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis–14.8%
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis–47.2%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis–1424
Design Arena AgenticDesign Arena1191†–
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–2.4%
CWE-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis–52.5%
DeepSec-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis–15.8%
CyberGym end-to-end (AA)Artificial Analysis–74.8%
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub66.0%†–
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub26.8%†–
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub94.4%†–
ProofBenchVals AI50.0%†42.0%
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench89.3%†–
AIME (Vals)Vals AI95.6%–
AIME 2026MathArena96.7%†–
HMMT February 2026MathArena96.2%†–
USAMO 2026MathArena47.0%†–
MathArena ApexMathArena34.5%†–
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1503†1470
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub47.0%†–
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–63.5%
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench–75.5%
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench69.9%†–
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis–16.4
MMLU-ProVals AI89.1%–
LegalBenchVals AI85.3%–
CorpFinVals AI67.0%–
TaxEvalVals AI76.0%–
MedQAVals AI95.4%–
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL53.3%†–
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL52.3%†–
MultiNRCScale AI SEAL48.3%†–
BioMysteryBenchVals AI–67.4%
CaseLaw v2Vals AI62.1%–
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI–57.1%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI–69.5%
MedCodeVals AI49.1%–
MedScribeVals AI86.1%–
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI–58.1%
DrugDiscoveryBenchScale AI SEAL27.7%†–
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub12.7%†–
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis–36.4%
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis–68.7%
Global-MMLU-Lite (AA)Artificial Analysis92.2%†–
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench83.3%†–
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench63.3%†–
IFBenchArtificial Analysis44.6%†–
MultiChallengeScale AI SEAL56.0%†–
TutorBenchScale AI SEAL53.5%†–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1499†1450
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1496†1449
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1210†–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1478†1413
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1509†1445
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1517†1461
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1312†1263
LiveBench DesignLiveBench–70.8%
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis72.5%†76.4%
VISTAScale AI SEAL45.5%†–
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI83.9%–
MortgageTaxVals AI68.5%–
VTBScale AI SEAL27.5%–
Code2Video-AAArtificial Analysis–821
AA-3DArtificial Analysis–859
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis67.0%†88.3%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)1496†–
MLCRArtificial Analysis–18.3%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub156.3†–
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench–54.9%
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench74.5%†–
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis–28.5
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis26.4†43.7
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis274.5†318.2
Vals IndexVals AI–54.8
Vals Finance IndexVals AI–55.4%
Vals Science IndexVals AI–29.6%
AA Cyber IndexArtificial Analysis–47.7
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL20.5%†–
MASKScale AI SEAL96.3%†–
Metadata
AA Openness IndexArtificial Analysis–33.3

Data as of 2026-11-14. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Step 5 Preview: 1 score revision.
  • Step 5 Preview: 7 score revisions.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking): BenchLeader Index 62.1 → 62.6.
  • Step 5 Preview: 2 new results (Vals Index, Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1).
  • Step 5 Preview: 1 score revision.
  • Step 5 Preview: BenchLeader Index 58.0 → 54.7.
  • Step 5 Preview: 5 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 2 score revisions; Step 5 Preview cost per task moved from $1.03/M to $2.35/M (128% up).
  • Step 5 Preview: 3 score revisions.
  • Step 5 Preview: 1 score revision.
  • Step 5 Preview: 7 new results (Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1, Finance Agent v2.1…).

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Step 5 Preview: questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Step 5 Preview?
Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking) leads on quality: 62.6 vs 54.3. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking) is ahead overall as of 14 Nov 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Step 5 Preview: which is cheaper, and will that change?
Step 5 Preview is cheaper today: $1.43 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Step 5 Preview better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in coding (64 vs 50 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or Step 5 Preview?
Step 5 Preview streams 3×+ faster (133 vs 36 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
Which is better for long documents?
Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
More questions (3)
Which has lower latency?
Claude Opus 4.6 answers first: 1.1 s against 24.3 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Opus 4.6 vs Step 5 Preview?
Across the 1 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.6 leads 0, Step 5 Preview leads 1. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 4.6 ahead.
When was Step 5 Preview released?
Step 5 Preview was released on 18 Sep 2026.