RankingEffort benchmarks

Claude Opus 5 · Medium

Compare models

165 measured results · 6 effort settings · 79 benchmark/harness combinations

Model evidence and sources →

Change model

Model

Current configurationSources

Compare with

Choose a second model and its effort to see both profiles and benchmark differences below.

Compare withModel and configuration

Capability profile

One configuration, seven capabilities

Comparison score · 0–100

AClaude Opus 5 · Medium3 of 7 capabilities supported

Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.

Agentic
A58.4Supported
Hard reasoning
A58.0Supported
Coding
A84.5Supported
Human pref
Unknown
Knowledge
A60.5Preliminary
Multimodal
A50.6Preliminary
Long context
A73.9Preliminary

Each profile belongs to the named configuration. Capability scores use a shared panel for all axes, distinct from the overall ranking panel; they are not accuracy percentages or direct head-to-head wins.

Capability score evidence

Claude Opus 5 · Medium: 83.2 overall comparison score. Meets the overall evidence requirements.

6 areas measured. The available task mix affects this estimate; missing areas remain unknown.

Shared-result disagreement. This aggregate order conflicts with matched benchmark results against 3 other configurations. Different test coverage and opponents affect the fit. Inspect published results before treating the rank as conclusive.

Which sources carry the weight?

Cognition · 47.5% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Artificial Analysis · 33.7% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Datacurve · 18.8% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider

Which benchmark families carry the weight?

FrontierCode · 47.5% direct comparison weight
DeepSWE · 18.8% direct comparison weight
Humanity’s Last Exam · 3.4% direct comparison weight
GPQA · 3.4% direct comparison weight
Critpt · 3.4% direct comparison weight
Other families (9) · 23.5% direct comparison weight

These shares describe direct comparison weight, not fractions of the final score or confidence. Source balancing does not give every family equal weight or remove correlations between overlapping sources.

DeepSWE v1.1 review: Epoch AI reported grading errors in at least 23 of 113 tasks. These published results remain included. Review their limitations in Epoch's review when interpreting this evidence.

How sensitive is this score?

The audit removes one source at a time and refits against the same overall reference panel. These published results use the matching dataset audited 2026-10-20.

Both ranks use the same surviving configurations for each removal. The cohort starts with 444 configurations supported in the original audit, including separate effort settings. These are diagnostic positions, not the default leaderboard ranks. Eligibility is not rechecked after removal.

What changes when a source is removed?
Removed source	Rank before → after	Rank movement	Cohort remaining / lost support	Score after (change)
Artificial Analysis	16 → 11	Up 5	203 remaining / 241 lost	88.4 (+5.2 points)
ARC Prize	16 → 17	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	85.1 (+1.9 points)
Datacurve	16 → 14	Up 2	444 remaining / 0 lost	83.2 (-0.0 points)
LiveCodeBench	16 → 16	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	83.2 (-0.0 points)
Scale	16 → 16	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	83.9 (+0.7 points)
Terminal-Bench	16 → 16	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	82.9 (-0.3 points)
Cognition	16 → 34	Down 18	444 remaining / 0 lost	68.7 (-14.5 points)
LiveBench	16 → 17	Down 1	443 remaining / 1 lost	84.0 (+0.8 points)
SWE-rebench	16 → 17	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	83.0 (-0.2 points)
Epoch AI	16 → 15	Up 1	431 remaining / 13 lost	84.0 (+0.8 points)
Vals AI	16 → 16	No movement	443 remaining / 1 lost	82.6 (-0.6 points)
Provider reports · Anthropic	16 → 16	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	83.1 (-0.1 points)
Provider reports · Moonshot AI	16 → 16	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	83.0 (-0.2 points)
Provider reports · Meta	16 → 16	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	83.2 (-0.0 points)
Provider reports · Mistral	16 → 16	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	83.2 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · OpenAI	16 → 14	Up 2	444 remaining / 0 lost	83.1 (-0.1 points)
All provider reports	16 → 14	Up 2	444 remaining / 0 lost	82.8 (-0.4 points)

Lost support means a configuration no longer has a comparison path to the complete reference panel. Its rank is unavailable. A surviving path alone does not establish leaderboard eligibility.

Overlapping sources may remain correlated even with source balancing. Leave-one-source-out movement is a sensitivity diagnostic, not a spread of source-specific ranks or a confidence measure. Scoring methodology · Dated configuration audit

Every benchmark family

Removed evidence	Recomputed score	Change
frontiercode	68.7	-14.5
arc-agi	84.8	+1.6
mmmu-pro	83.8	+0.6
gdp-pdf	83.6	+0.4
gpqa	83.6	+0.4
automationbench	83.5	+0.4
terminal-bench	82.8	-0.3
ifbench	82.9	-0.3
arc-agi-3	82.9	-0.3
aime	83.0	-0.2
livebench-instructions	83.4	+0.2
livebench-coding	83.0	-0.2
swe-atlas-test-writing	83.0	-0.2
swe-rebench	83.0	-0.2
gdpval	83.4	+0.2
terminal-bench-science	83.0	-0.2
simpleqa	83.4	+0.2
hle	83.3	+0.2
swe-atlas-qna	83.0	-0.1
epoch-game-puzzles	83.0	-0.1
livebench-language	83.3	+0.1
enigma-eval	83.1	-0.1
multi-swe-bench	83.1	-0.1
livebench-data	83.3	+0.1
mmlu-pro	83.3	+0.1
swe-atlas-refactoring	83.1	-0.1
frontiermath	83.1	-0.1
livebench-reasoning	83.1	-0.1
tau-bench	83.1	-0.1
aa-lcr	83.1	-0.1
analyst-agent	83.1	-0.1
livecodebench	83.1	-0.1
vibe-code	83.1	-0.1
livebench-math	83.1	-0.1
vals-legal-research	83.1	-0.1
enterprise-ops	83.1	-0.1
vals-tax-agent	83.1	-0.0
briefcase	83.2	+0.0
omniscience	83.2	+0.0
gmmlu	83.2	-0.0
math500	83.2	-0.0
vals-excel-modeling	83.2	-0.0
itbench	83.2	+0.0
apex-agents	83.2	+0.0
vals-code-migration	83.2	-0.0
critpt	83.2	+0.0
vals-finance-agent	83.2	+0.0
swe-bench-pro	83.2	+0.0
deepswe	83.2	-0.0
harvey	83.2	+0.0

What evidence is missing from the fit?

Across all collected settings for this model: 285 observations, 138 contributing, 2 matched without graph weight and 145 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.

8 · Benchmark family or source protocol has not been reviewed
5 · Original SciCode grading defects are under review; retained as supporting evidence, excluded from aggregate and capability scores. Corrected SciCode-Verified requires a separate protocol review. Sources: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04975 and https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/scicode
11 · Evaluator has not been reviewed for independent admission
7 · Effort is not identified
1 · One run-task used an Opus 4.8 refusal fallback; mixed checkpoint result excluded from ranking
1 · Source discloses an Opus 4.8 refusal fallback; mixed checkpoint result excluded from ranking
40 · No reviewed effort for this catalog observation; any separately collected effort measurement is counted separately
19 · Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.
1 · Historical provider claim; secondary and superseded for current FrontierSWE comparisons by the independent Proximal FrontierSWE v2 mean@5 board at https://www.frontierswe.com/. Version-unspecified claims are not v2 results. Excluded from weighted Overall.
34 · Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core
1 · Secondary GDPval-AA v2 leaderboard report; the original evaluator already supplies this exact configuration. Reprinted or rerated board snapshots are not additional evaluation evidence.
3 · No matched opponent in this evaluation unit
1 · Metric turns is outside the task-success core
1 · Mixed source task revisions and best-of-three versus provider reporting prevent a uniform common-core unit.
3 · Composite index or publisher-specific internal evaluation lacks a stable general-capability comparison unit.
1 · Different native coding harnesses are mixed; exact shared agent configuration is not established.
7 · Legacy self-report lacks a reviewed comparison configuration
1 · Composite index or publisher-specific internal evaluation lacks a stable general-capability comparison unit. Composite index excluded to avoid double counting its ingredients.

Inspect every observation and exclusion →

Benchmark results

These are published benchmark scores. Supported effort estimates also appear on the Capability leaderboard. Results from different harnesses occupy different rows. Missing cells stay unknown; no scores are copied between effort levels.

Benchmark / source	Low	Medium	High	XHigh	Max	Unspecified
AA-AnalystAgentArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks solved on all 5 of 5 attempts · 80 tasks, 5 attempts per task · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	53.75% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
AA-Briefcase EloArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Briefcase v1.1 is an agentic knowledge work benchmark developed by Artificial Analysis. AA-Briefcase Elo is a combined metric that aggregates rubric pass rate, analytical quality Elo and presentation Elo · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	1,209.28 Elo Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	1,434.89 Elo Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	1,560.7 Elo Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	1,633.85 Elo Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	1,659.48 Elo Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	81.33% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	82% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	79% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	80.33% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	79.33% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
AutomationBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of task objectives completed with no guardrail violations · Higher is better · Benchmark developed by Zapier · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	51.79% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	54.34% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	53.56% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	53.22% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	56.57% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
CritPtArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Argonne and UIUC, with contributions from 60+ researchers globally. CritPt is under review by its authors following external feedback · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	23.14% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	26.86% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	28.29% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	27.71% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	29.14% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
EnterpriseOps-Gym-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Overall task success rate across all eight enterprise domains (oracle tool mode) · Benchmark developed by ServiceNow Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	47.48% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
GDP.pdf: All-pass RateArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of attempts where every atomic criterion passed · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	17.2% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	20% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	19.6% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	21% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	21.6% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
GDPval-AA v2.1 LeaderboardArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Elo rating for performance on real-world work tasks · Anchored to DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) at 1600 · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	1,302.46 Elo Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	1,492.08 Elo Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	1,594.93 Elo Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	1,690.67 Elo Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	1,721.15 Elo Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
GPQA DiamondArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	88.89% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	91.92% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	93.74% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	93.74% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	93.23% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	43.42% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	51.3% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	52.83% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	54.4% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	54.87% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
MLCR-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks judged accurate, complete, and concise · Expert + compound (hard) sets · Benchmark developed by Wisedocs · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	53.89% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	56.11% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	59.44% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	58.33% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	55.56% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	79.83% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	81.62% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	82.43% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	83.99% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	84.74% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
AA-Omniscience IndexArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Index (higher is better) measures knowledge reliability and hallucination. It rewards correct answers, penalizes hallucinations, and has no penalty for refusing to answer. Scores range from -100 to 100, where 0 means as many correct as incorrect answers, and negative scores mean more incorrect than correct. · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: index. Source collected 2026-10-18.	28.55 Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	31.02 Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	33.72 Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	35.38 Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	37.07 Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
AA-Omniscience AccuracyArtificial Analysis · 6000 questions; 1 attempt; correct-answer share; GPT-5.6 Luna medium grader Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Accuracy (higher is better) measures the proportion of correctly answered questions out of all questions, regardless of whether the model chooses to answer · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	55.95% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	57.07% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	58.88% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	59.5% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	60.87% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
SciCodeArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark curated by scientists across 16 disciplines. SciCode is under review following an independent audit of the dataset · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	49.19% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	51.5% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	55.44% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	55.67% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	56.37% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
𝜏³-BankingArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Sierra Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	30.31% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	38.56% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	44.74% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	43.3% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	42.06% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Artificial Analysis · mini-swe-agent; Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1.0; 70 tasks; pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats Benchmark details Share of tasks passed (pass@1), averaged over three repeats · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	28.57% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v2.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	76.4% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	86.14% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	87.64% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	88.01% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	89.14% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v4.0Artificial Analysis · mini-SWE-agent v2.4.6; 66 tasks; pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats; 500 steps; task timeout up to 8 hours Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute, Stanford, and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	26.26% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-low	34.34% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-medium	45.96% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-high	46.46% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5-xhigh	48.99% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-opus-5	Not reported
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize · v2 Semi-Private Benchmark details Original public board. Configuration and task coverage may differ; inspect source. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	88.33% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (High); Source model ID: anthropic-claude-opus-5-high; 120 tasks	Not reported	90.42% Reported settings Claude Opus 5 (Max); Source model ID: anthropic-claude-opus-5-max; 120 tasks	Not reported
DeepSWE v1.1Datacurve · mini-swe-agent Benchmark details Original public board. Configuration and task coverage may differ; inspect source. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	58.1% Reported settings claude-opus-5; Reported effort: low; 113 unique tasks; 449 attempts; 4 runs	68.9% Reported settings claude-opus-5; Reported effort: medium; 113 unique tasks; 447 attempts; 4 runs	72.8% Reported settings claude-opus-5; Reported effort: high; 113 unique tasks; 449 attempts; 4 runs	73.2% Reported settings claude-opus-5; Reported effort: xhigh; 113 unique tasks; 447 attempts; 4 runs	73.6% Reported settings claude-opus-5; Reported effort: max; 113 unique tasks; 444 attempts; 4 runs	Not reported
VulcanBench v3 · Report 10VulcanBench · VulcanBench bare-bones API loop, deterministic hidden tests in Docker Benchmark details Frozen v3, 23 post-cutoff repository tasks. Published pass@1; repeat counts and time budgets vary by report. Display only pending comparability review. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	87% Reported settings Claude Opus 5; source label: low; low effort; 23 tasks; evaluation 2026-07-26. See source for repeat counts and wall-clock budget.	82.6% Reported settings Claude Opus 5; source label: medium; medium effort; 23 tasks; evaluation 2026-07-26. See source for repeat counts and wall-clock budget.	78.3% Reported settings Claude Opus 5; source label: high; high effort; 23 tasks; evaluation 2026-07-26. See source for repeat counts and wall-clock budget.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
ARC-AGI-3 · standardARC Prize · Standard Benchmark details ARC-AGI-3; Standard. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	30.16% Reported settings ARC-AGI-3 Semi-Private verified summary; Standard harness; source group anthropic-claude-opus-5; variant high; public-demo task scores are excluded	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
FrontierCode 1.1 · extended-claude-codeCognition · claude-code Benchmark details FrontierCode 1.1; claude-code. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	55.75% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort low; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.0041	63.63% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort medium; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.004	58.45% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort high; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.0013	56.87% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort xhigh; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.0097	58.94% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort max; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.0067	Not reported
FrontierCode 1.1 · main-claude-codeCognition · claude-code Benchmark details FrontierCode 1.1; claude-code. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	41.95% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort low; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.0021	53.38% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort medium; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.006	47.99% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort high; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.002	43.65% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort xhigh; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.0144	48.04% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort max; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.0101	Not reported

What these comparisons mean

Each source reports its own effort labels. Matching labels do not establish equal compute budgets or identical fallback behavior. Open Reported settings to inspect the exact model name, agent and task coverage. Multiple results at one level remain visible rather than selecting the best. Source-reported None or Non-reasoning labels are not treated as evidence that an API supports those settings.

These measurements use their own dated source collection. The leaderboard fits identified configurations jointly; it contains no pooled model ratings. Explicit thinking budgets are separate configurations. Read the methodology.

Download all effort benchmark results · 8,915 results across 259 models · Collected 2026-10-18

Claude Opus 5 · Medium

Compare with

One configuration, seven capabilities

Agentic

Hard reasoning

Coding

Human pref

Knowledge

Multimodal

Long context

Capability score evidence

Benchmark results