Claude Opus 5 vs Dola Seed 2.0 Pro
Full profiles: Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic) and Dola Seed 2.0 Pro (ByteDance): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 11 sources
As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Opus 5 is ahead of Dola Seed 2.0 Pro on quality (65.2 vs 58.5 on the BenchLeader Index). Claude Opus 5 leads in every category we measure both in.
Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)
- Claude Opus 5 scores 65.2 on the BenchLeader Index and Dola Seed 2.0 Pro scores 58.5 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
- Claude Opus 5 costs $10.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Opus 5 benchmarks 
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro benchmarks 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 case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 5 | 68 vs 65 category score | Medium |
| Maths | Claude Opus 5 | 66 vs 63 category score | Medium |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 5 | 71 vs 64 category score | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | Claude Opus 5 | 76 vs 64 on Arena votes | High |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Claude Opus 5 leads on quality: 65.2 vs 58.5.
- Claude Opus 5 is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, knowledge, maths, reasoning.
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro is stronger in multimodal.
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Opus 5 | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | ByteDance |
| Released | 24 Jul 2026 | 14 Feb 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | – |
| Compared at | Claude Opus 5 | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $5.00 / $25.00 / $0.500 | – |
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.
| Category | Claude Opus 5 | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 71.2 | 64.4 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Coding | 67.9 | 65.0 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Agents & tools | 65.1 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 65.8 | 62.8 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Knowledge | 66.3 | – | not comparable |
| Human preference | 75.9 | 64.2 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Multimodal | – | 61.3 | not 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.
Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Agents & tools, Knowledge, Instruction following, Long context, Multimodal.
Where sources disagree
Across the 0 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 5 leads 0, Dola Seed 2.0 Pro leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 5 ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Opus 5 | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 65.2 | 58.5 | Claude Opus 5 |
| Arena Text | 1490† | 1457 | Claude Opus 5 |
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.
| Measure | Claude Opus 5 | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $10.00 | – |
| Input / output per 1M | $5.00 / $25.00 | – / – |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.500 | – |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0095 | – |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.075 | – |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.068 | – |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.400 | – |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.015 | – |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | $0.198 | – |
| Output speed | 64 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | 2.9 s | – |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Opus 5 scores 65.2 and takes 3 s to its first answer token; Claude Opus 5 (max) scores 65.1 in 60 s, Claude Opus 5 (high) scores 64.2 in 14 s. Dola Seed 2.0 Pro scores 58.5. 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
128 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.
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Opus 5 | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 65.2 | 58.5 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 65.1 | – |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 67.9 | 65.0 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 75.9 | 64.2 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 66.3 | – |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 65.8 | 62.8 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 71.2 | 64.4 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 61.3 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $10.00 | – |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 64 tok/s | – |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 2.9 s | – |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | – |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 92.9% | – |
| SimpleBench | SimpleBench | 80.6% | – |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1513† | 1481 |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 91.2%† | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 93.2%† | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 54.9%† | – |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 44.8%† | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | 93.4% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 97.5%† | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 90.4%† | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | 30.2%† | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 29.1%† | – |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 50.0%† | – |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 37.4% | – |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 43.0%† | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 37.0% | – |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 63.3%† | – |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 97.6%† | – |
| ForecastBench | ForecastBench | 66.5%† | – |
| BTF-3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 12.0%† | – |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | 56.4%† | – |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | 86.3% | – |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 53.4%† | – |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1528† | 1514 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1691† | – |
Show all 128 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Opus 5 | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 81.5%† | – |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | 89.0% | – |
| IOI | Vals AI | 84.3% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | 97.0% | – |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 57.5% | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 3.0% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | Vals AI | 28.5% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 88.4% | – |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | Scale AI SEAL | 63.2%† | – |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | Scale AI SEAL | 62.2%† | – |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 73.7%† | – |
| CursorBench | Cursor | 46.6%† | – |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 2164.6† | – |
| FrontierSWE | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 52.0%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 49.0%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 89.1%† | – |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | 82.3% | – |
| GameBench 2 Overall | DuelLab GameBench 2 | 76.6 | – |
| GameBench 2 by reasoning setting | DuelLab GameBench 2 | 84.7† | – |
| Design Arena Website | Design Arena | 1306 | – |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 31.1%† | – |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 52.1%† | – |
| OSWorld-Verified 2.0 | OSWorld | 31.4%† | – |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | 65.8%† | – |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | 7.5† | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | 65.2%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | 84.6% | – |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | 85.8%† | – |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | 57.0% | – |
| τ³-bench Banking | τ²-bench | 48.7%† | – |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 42.1%† | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 53.8%† | – |
| CUA-bench | Vals AI | 9.0%† | – |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | 65.4% | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 58.6% | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 6.7% | – |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 55.3% | – |
| SkillsBench | Vals AI | 60.4% | – |
| SREBench | Vals AI | 12.2% | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 47.1% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 53.5% | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 27.1% | – |
| Time Horizon Index: KSP | Vals AI | 18.8% | – |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | 1214† | – |
| BALROG | BALROG | 63.4%† | – |
| PostTrainBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 35.0% | – |
| GBAEval | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 79.6% | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 11181.9 | – |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 56.6%† | – |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 21.6%† | – |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | Artificial Analysis | 47.5%† | – |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1655† | – |
| Design Arena Agentic | Design Arena | 1266 | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 28.6%† | – |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 25.9%† | – |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 85.6%† | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 73.2%† | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 97.8% | – |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 99.0%† | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 95.7%† | – |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1515† | 1449 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 59.9%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 74.5%† | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 37.6† | – |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | 91.6% | – |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | 87.0% | – |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | 73.2% | – |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | 75.1% | – |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 79.3% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 73.6% | – |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 63.6% | – |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 91.0% | – |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 76.9% | – |
| DrugDiscoveryBench | Scale AI SEAL | 53.7%† | – |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 45.7%† | – |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 24.0%† | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | 60.9%† | – |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 40.6%† | – |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | 88.7%† | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 63.8%† | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1494† | 1435 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1489† | 1457 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | 1365 | – |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1473† | 1403 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1486† | 1449 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1501† | 1453 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1317† | 1274 |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | 84.7%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | 89.9% | – |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | 72.1% | – |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 30.4% | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 79.3%† | – |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | 1486† | – |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 11.1%† | – |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 164.4 | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 80.1%† | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 44.2† | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 50.8† | – |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | 333.7† | – |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | 33.0%† | – |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | 47.9% | – |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Vals AI | 73.9% | – |
| Safety & honesty | |||
| FORTRESS | Scale AI SEAL | 16.8% | – |
Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.
What changed
- Claude Opus 5: 1 score revision.
- Claude Opus 5: 1 score revision.
- Claude Opus 5: 1 score revision.
- Claude Opus 5: 1 score revision.
- Claude Opus 5: BenchLeader Index 65.8 → 65.0.
- Claude Opus 5: 1 score revision.
- Claude Opus 5: 2 new results (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1, Vals Science Index).
- Claude Opus 5: 1 score revision.
- Claude Opus 5: 8 new results (LiveBench 2.0, LiveBench Long Agentic, LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning…).
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro: BenchLeader Index 59.1 → 58.6.
Related comparisons
- Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Opus 5 vs Dola Seed 2.0 Pro: questions
- Is Claude Opus 5 better than Dola Seed 2.0 Pro?
- Claude Opus 5 leads on quality: 65.2 vs 58.5. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 5 is ahead overall as of 9 Nov 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 5 or Dola Seed 2.0 Pro better for coding?
- Claude Opus 5 scores higher in coding (68 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- When was Claude Opus 5 released?
- Claude Opus 5 was released on 24 Jul 2026.