BenchLeader
AnthropicReasoning model

Claude Opus 4.6

Reasoning effort

Claude Opus 4.6 is an Anthropic proprietary reasoning model, released 17 Dec 2025. Its best configuration ranks #68 of 756 on the BenchLeader Index at 63.1 ±4.7, in the upper half. The ± is the point: 152 other configurations score within that range, so they and this one cannot be told apart on quality alone — price and speed are what separate them. It scores highest in agents & tools (69) and lowest in coding (60). At $10.00 per million tokens blended it is among the most expensive ranked models. Output speed of 38 tokens per second puts it in the slowest quarter, with a first token in 1.5 s. It has been measured at 7 reasoning-effort settings; this summary describes the best-scoring one, and the tabs above switch between them. Last measured 2 Oct 2026.

Blended price
$10.00/M
$5.00 in · $25.00 out
Output speed
38 tok/s
OpenRouter traffic, 7-day median; not yet measured by Artificial Analysis
First answer
1.54 s
Context
1M
Full answer
–
Cost per run
–
Released
17 Dec 2025
How it scores by categoryDashed line = average model (50). One step of 15 = one standard deviation.
  1. Overall index63
  2. Reasoning62
  3. Coding60
  4. Agents & tools69
  5. Maths68
  6. Human preference64
  7. Multimodal67

Versions

Anthropic has shipped 9 models under this name. Each is ranked on its own results; a newer version often has fewer results so far, which holds its index nearer the average until more arrive.

ModelReleasedIndexRank
Claude Opus 5.5high22 Sept 202670.1#2
Claude Opus 5high24 Jul 202668.4#14
Claude Opus 4.8max28 May 202662.4#82
Claude Opus 4.716 Apr 202663.8#59
Claude Opus 4.6this page17 Dec 202563.1#68
Claude Opus 4.5thinking24 Nov 202560.2#106
Claude Opus 4.1thinking5 Aug 202556.7#181
Claude Opus 4thinking22 May 202555.3#214
Claude 3 Opus4 Mar 202439.3#664

Reasoning-effort configurations

The same model behaves differently depending on how much it is allowed to think. Each row is one setting, scored only on the benchmarks that were run at that setting. “Not stated” collects results from publishers that did not say which setting they used; for a reasoning model that is usually its thinking mode, but we do not assume it. Pick a setting here or at the top of the page to see its price, speed and category scores.

EffortIndexRankSpeedFirst answerChat reply costCategories
no reasoning54.3#24138 tok/s1.54 s$0.0095Instruction following 50 · Knowledge 65 · Multimodal 56
low––38 tok/s1.54 s$0.0095Reasoning 61
medium––38 tok/s1.54 s$0.0095Reasoning 63
high60.1#10938 tok/s1.97 s$0.0095Agents & tools 76 · Coding 63 · Composite 54 · Human preference 71 · Instruction following 47 · Knowledge 63 · Long context 59 · Maths 64 · Multimodal 61 · Reasoning 59
max57.2#17041 tok/s20 s$0.0095Agents & tools 58 · Composite 66 · Instruction following 38 · Knowledge 63 · Long context 64 · Maths 57 · Multimodal 58 · Reasoning 62
thinking62.5#8138 tok/s1.54 s$0.0095Coding 64 · Knowledge 62 · Maths 65 · Reasoning 76
not statedbest63.1#6838 tok/s1.54 s$0.0095Agents & tools 69 · Coding 60 · Human preference 64 · Maths 68 · Multimodal 67 · Reasoning 62

How its index has moved

8 Sept 2026 to 5 Oct 2026
495968
  • not stated
  • high
  • max
  • no reasoning

The index is recomputed from scratch every day, so a line moves when a new benchmark result lands, when a publisher revises a score, or when the models it is normalised against change. Early movement usually means the score is still settling.

Benchmark results

One column per reasoning effort. Rank is among every configuration of every model on that benchmark. Hover a score for the run it came from.

Reasoning

Benchmarkno reasoninglowmediumhighmaxthinkingnot statedSourceTrend
GPQA Diamond––––88.4%#55–90.5%#40Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
Humanity's Last Exam––––34.4%#10–19.0%#22Scale AI / CAIS
SimpleBench––––––67.6%#16SimpleBench
LMArena Hard Prompts–––1533#3––1526#5LMArena
LiveBench Reasoningnot in index–––88.7%#20–––LiveBench
GPQA Diamond (AA)not in index–––84.0%#14789.6%#70––Artificial Analysis
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)not in index–––19.1%#20439.9%#78––Artificial Analysis
GPQA Diamond (Vals)not in index–––––89.7%#28–Vals AI
Kagi LLM Benchmark–––––83.6%#572.4%#23Kagi LLM Benchmark
ARC-AGI-1–86.0%#8992.0%#5394.0%#4093.0%#45––ARC Prize
ARC-AGI-2–64.6%#6766.3%#6369.2%#5468.8%#56––ARC Prize
ARC-AGI-3––––0.5%#31––ARC Prize
CritPt–––2.8%#16912.6%#93––Artificial Analysis
Chess Puzzlesnot in index––––14.0%#110–17.0%#101Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
Mystery Game Puzzlesnot in index–7.0%#117––25.0%#42–15.0%#85Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
CL-benchnot in index––––––20.7%#7Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
CL-bench Lifenot in index–––17.0%#5––13.6%#8Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
LMCAnot in index––––55.8%#30––Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
DTBenchnot in index––––91.2%#58––Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
ForecastBenchnot in index––––––60.0%#33ForecastBench

Coding

Benchmarkno reasoninglowmediumhighmaxthinkingnot statedSourceTrend
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)––––––78.7%#4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
WeirdML–––78.0%#21––77.9%#22WeirdML
FrontierCode––––––26.6%#31Cognition
GSO-Bench–––41.2%#8––33.3%#11GSO-Bench
LMArena Coding–––1551#3––1548#5LMArena
LMArena WebDev–––1546#37––1537#40LMArena
LiveBench Codingnot in index–––78.2%#31–––LiveBench
LiveCodeBench–––––84.7%#36–Vals AI
SWE-bench (Vals)not in index–––––78.2%#30–Vals AI
SWE-Bench Pro–––––51.9%#4–Scale AI SEAL
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)––––––75.6%#4SWE-bench
SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold)not in index––––––75.6%#4SWE-bench
Vibe Code Bench v1.1not in index–––––53.5%#4557.6%#43Vals AI
SWE-Bench Pro (private)not in index–––––51.9%#4–Scale AI SEAL
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAnot in index––––––33.3%#13Scale AI SEAL
SWE Atlas: Refactoringnot in index––––––35.6%#11Scale AI SEAL
SWE Atlas: Test Writingnot in index––––––36.7%#14Scale AI SEAL
ALE-Benchnot in index––––––996.5#52Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
AlgoTunenot in index–––1.5#12–––AlgoTune

Agents & tools

Benchmarkno reasoninglowmediumhighmaxthinkingnot statedSourceTrend
Terminal-Bench––––––79.8%#5Terminal-Bench
Cybench––––––93.0%#1Cybench
Remote Labor Index––––––4.2%#8Scale AI / CAIS
APEX-Agents––––46.3%#33––Mercor
LiveBench Agentic Codingnot in index–––49.0%#42–––LiveBench
Terminal-Bench Hard–––48.5%#2646.2%#30––Artificial Analysis
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)not in index–––84.8%#9692.1%#53––Artificial Analysis
MCP Atlas––––76.8%#16––Scale AI SEAL
HiL-Bench––––––38.3%#8Scale AI SEAL
APEX-Agents (AA)not in index––––33.0%#10––Artificial Analysis
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)not in index–––––58.4%#10–Vals AI
DeepResearch Benchnot in index–51.4%#853.2%#655.3%#1–––DeepResearch Bench
METR Time Horizonsnot in index––––––78.9%#2METR
GBAEvalnot in index––––––44.1%#11Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
Vending-Bench 2not in index––––––8017.6#12Andon Labs

Maths

Benchmarkno reasoninglowmediumhighmaxthinkingnot statedSourceTrend
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3––––66.0%#28––Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
FrontierMath Tier 4––––26.8%#38––Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
OTIS Mock AIME––––91.1%#62–94.4%#46Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
ProofBench––––50.0%#28––Vals AI
LiveBench Mathematicsnot in index–––89.3%#36–––LiveBench
AIME (Vals)–––––95.6%#8–Vals AI
AIME 2026–––96.7%#6–––MathArena
HMMT February 2026–––96.2%#5–––MathArena
MathArena Apex–––34.5%#8–––MathArena
LMArena Maths–––1517#6––1507#10LMArena

Knowledge

Benchmarkno reasoninglowmediumhighmaxthinkingnot statedSourceTrend
SimpleQA Verified––––47.0%#33––Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
LiveBench Data Analysisnot in index–––69.9%#50–––LiveBench
AA-Omniscience–––2.4#10813.7#83––Artificial Analysis
MMLU-Pro–––––89.1%#15–Vals AI
LegalBench–––––85.3%#20–Vals AI
CorpFin–––––67.0%#13–Vals AI
TaxEval–––––76.0%#8–Vals AI
MedQA–––––95.4%#12–Vals AI
PRBench Finance53.3%#4––––––Scale AI SEAL
PRBench Legal52.3%#5––––––Scale AI SEAL
MultiNRC48.3%#13–––57.1%#8––Scale AI SEAL
CaseLaw v2not in index–––––62.1%#20–Vals AI
MedCodenot in index–––––49.1%#2348.2%#28Vals AI
MedScribenot in index–––––86.1%#2286.7%#19Vals AI
DrugDiscoveryBenchnot in index––––27.7%#17––Scale AI SEAL
EBR-benchnot in index––––12.7%#17––Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
AA-Omniscience: accuracynot in index–––45.8%#8247.0%#76––Artificial Analysis
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationnot in index–––19.9%#26437.2%#163––Artificial Analysis

Instruction following

Benchmarkno reasoninglowmediumhighmaxthinkingnot statedSourceTrend
LiveBench Languagenot in index–––83.3%#20–––LiveBench
LiveBench Instruction Followingnot in index–––63.3%#47–––LiveBench
IFBench–––44.6%#20753.1%#156––Artificial Analysis
MultiChallenge56.0%#17–––37.1%#28––Scale AI SEAL
LMArena Instruction Followingnot in index–––1514#3––1499#6LMArena

Human preference

Benchmarkno reasoninglowmediumhighmaxthinkingnot statedSourceTrend
LMArena Text–––1505#2––1497#7LMArena
EQ-Bench 4––––––1223#12EQ-Bench
LMArena Creative Writingnot in index–––1501#4––1479#12LMArena
LMArena Multi-turnnot in index–––1518#3––1512#7LMArena
LMArena Longer Queriesnot in index–––1524#3––1517#5LMArena

Multimodal

Benchmarkno reasoninglowmediumhighmaxthinkingnot statedSourceTrend
LMArena Vision–––1316#5––1313#9LMArena
MMMU-Pro–––72.5%#12675.4%#94––Artificial Analysis
VISTA45.5%#25–––46.1%#22––Scale AI SEAL
MMMU-Pro (Vals)not in index–––––83.9%#29–Vals AI
MortgageTaxnot in index–––––68.5%#15–Vals AI
SAGEnot in index–––––51.6%#12–Vals AI
VTBnot in index–––––27.5%#4–Scale AI SEAL

Long context

Benchmarkno reasoninglowmediumhighmaxthinkingnot statedSourceTrend
AA-LCR–––67.0%#22578.0%#110––Artificial Analysis
LMArena Documentnot in index–––1495#2––1494#4LMArena

Composite

Benchmarkno reasoninglowmediumhighmaxthinkingnot statedSourceTrend
Epoch Capabilities Indexnot in index––––––155.3#27Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub
LiveBench–––74.5%#40–––LiveBench
AA Intelligence Index–––26.4#13731.9#100––Artificial Analysis

Safety & honesty

Benchmarkno reasoninglowmediumhighmaxthinkingnot statedSourceTrend
FORTRESSnot in index20.5%#37–––13.0%#59––Scale AI SEAL
MASKnot in index96.3%#1–––85.4%#18––Scale AI SEAL

Where it wins

Benchmarks where this configuration ranks in the top five of every configuration measured.

Where to run it

Every provider serving this model through OpenRouter, with throughput and first-token latency measured on live traffic over the last 30 minutes and each provider’s own price. Purple marks the best in each column.

ProviderSpeedFirst tokenInput $/MOutput $/MContextQuantisation
Google Vertex52 tok/s1.59 s$5.50$27.501M–
Google Vertex39 tok/s1.86 s$5.00$25.001M–
Anthropic39 tok/s1.67 s$5.00$25.001M–
Claude Platform on AWS38 tok/s1.63 s$5.00$25.001M–
Amazon Bedrock38 tok/s2.16 s$5.00$25.001M–
Azure34 tok/s2.60 s$5.00$25.001M–

Price history

Listed price per 1M tokens over time, as recorded by OpenRouter for the provider with the longest history.

$0.00$7.56$15.13$22.69$30.25Feb 26Apr 26Jun 26Aug 26Oct 26
input outputnow $5.50 in · $27.50 out

What a task costs

Estimates from list price, output speed and time to first answer for the best configuration. “With caching” assumes three-quarters of the input is served from the prompt cache at $0.500 per 1M. Reasoning tokens are not modelled.

WorkloadTokens in / outCostWith cachingTime
Chat reply400 / 300$0.0095$0.00819.4 s
Summarise a 30-page report12,000 / 600$0.075$0.03517.3 s
Code edit6,000 / 1,500$0.068$0.04741.0 s
Agentic coding session60,000 / 4,000$0.400$0.1981.8 min
Structured extraction2,000 / 200$0.015$0.00836.8 s

See also

Data as of 5 Oct 2026. Compare these configurations.

Cite as: BenchLeader, “Claude Opus 4.6: benchmarks, pricing, speed and rank”, https://www.benchleader.com/models/claude-opus-4-6, data as of 5 Oct 2026.