RankingClaude Opus 4.6

Claude Opus 4.6

Data updated 22 Oct 2026

35 published benchmark measures · 5 benchmark families contribute across 3 task areas. 2 capability estimates available in the full profile. See all results ↓ · Compare published benchmarks →

Model evidence summary

This profile combines published settings. It is not a runnable configuration or a leaderboard rank. Compare measured configurations →

Performance profile

Capabilities

Adjusted comparison score · 0–100

Filled points are supported; hollow points are preliminary. Lines stop at unknown capabilities. Exact values and sources follow below.

AgenticNo comparable evidenceUnknown

0 core families; 0 direct opponents across 0 labs. No admitted core comparisons

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 13/13 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 15/15 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts improved on neutral predictions within evaluated coverage; source sensitivity still requires inspection. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Hard reasoning2 families · 0 with independent evidence · Preliminary45.0

2 core families; 5 direct opponents across 5 labs. Needs broader benchmark and opponent support

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 6/6 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 16/16 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts improved on neutral predictions within evaluated coverage. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Aime: 100.0 observed win share
Microsoft · Source 1
GPQA: 80.0 observed win share
Microsoft · Source 1

Coding2 families · 2 with independent evidence · Supported12.0

2 core families; 25 direct opponents across 11 labs.

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: 11.6–26.1; 2/6 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: 5.4–25.4; 0/19 unsupported. Smoothing check: 9.6–18.5; 0/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts improved on neutral predictions within evaluated coverage. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

SWE-bench Verified: 94.4 observed win share
Microsoft, swebench.com · Source 1 Source 2
SWE-bench Pro: 29.2 observed win share
Microsoft, labs.scale.com · Source 1 Source 2

Human pref1 families · 1 with independent evidence · PreliminaryUnknown

1 core families; 76 direct opponents across 17 labs. No connected comparison to the complete reference panel

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 1/1 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 1/1 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: cross-family and cross-publisher predictions could not be evaluated from the available comparison network. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Human preference (Arena): 100.0 observed win share
lmarena.ai · Source 1

KnowledgeNo comparable evidenceUnknown

0 core families; 0 direct opponents across 0 labs. No admitted core comparisons

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 4/4 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 5/5 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: almost no publisher-held-out comparisons remained estimable. Cross-source validity is unresolved. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

MultimodalNo comparable evidenceUnknown

0 core families; 0 direct opponents across 0 labs. No admitted core comparisons

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 8/8 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 8/8 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: limited publisher-held-out coverage. Cross-source validity is unresolved. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Long contextNo comparable evidenceUnknown

0 core families; 0 direct opponents across 0 labs. No admitted core comparisons

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 5/5 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 5/5 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts underperformed neutral predictions. Treat this as an exploratory estimate. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Scores estimate outcomes against a shared reference panel; they are not accuracy percentages. Sparse or disconnected evidence cannot qualify an overall profile. Open a capability to inspect its evidence.

Reported effort · Max + unspecified

Settings reported in this model's published benchmark results, including results outside the aggregate. Effort names are provider-specific. These are not API defaults or equal compute budgets.

Max: 32 observations
Not specified: 9 observations

Mixed settings means multiple settings occur in the evidence. Best across efforts means the source selected its best reported result across settings; it does not mean Max. Unspecified settings stay unknown. This model-summary chart combines reported settings. The leaderboard keeps identified configurations separate and excludes unknown effort.

Inspect each result and its source ↓ · Download effort evidence

Score contributions and missing evidence

5 contributing families across 3 capabilities. Fixed reference panels do not change when the catalog expands.

Capability is fitted jointly across families. Capability estimates below describe different task areas; their weighted sum is not the Capability score.

Results without reviewed compatibility or a reference match remain in the raw evidence below. Coverage counts only contributing results.

Model information & shareable badge

Lab: Anthropic
Catalog status: active
Availability: Public provider catalog; account and region restrictions may apply
Family: Claude Opus
Released: —
Context: —
License: proprietary
Model card: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/model-deprecations
Default Capability family coverage: /badge/claude-opus-4-6.svg

Benchmark scores & sources

Original results, evaluation harnesses, and evidence behind this model.

Benchmark	Bucket	Score	Harness	Evidence	Source-recorded date
MMMU-Pro (w/ python)	Supporting evidence	77.3% Reported settings & source Kimi K2.6 card, MMMU-Pro (w/ python). Thinking mode; temperature 1.0, top-p 1.0, context 262144. Comparator settings: GPT-5.4 xhigh, Opus4.6 max, Gemini3.1Pro high. See benchmark-specific footnotes. Only own K2.6 and starred re-evaluations can form new comparisons. Vision: 98304 tokens, average of three runs; Python condition uses 65536 tokens per step, at most50steps. Source SHA256 95db3be1d0473e482c7aa901f237ad7af8bb7929625a777b27428081bb8ea9f7. Cited from another official report; does not establish a new same-protocol evaluation. Comparison limit: Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run. Kimi K2.6 official model card · Evaluation Results table, MMMU-Pro (w/ python), column 4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
OJBench (python)	Supporting evidence	60.3% Reported settings & source Kimi K2.6 card, OJBench (python). Thinking mode; temperature 1.0, top-p 1.0, context 262144. Comparator settings: GPT-5.4 xhigh, Opus4.6 max, Gemini3.1Pro high. See benchmark-specific footnotes. Only own K2.6 and starred re-evaluations can form new comparisons. Coding: average of ten runs; Terminal uses Terminus2 preserve-thinking; SWE uses in-house SWE-agent. Source SHA256 95db3be1d0473e482c7aa901f237ad7af8bb7929625a777b27428081bb8ea9f7. Cited from another official report; does not establish a new same-protocol evaluation. Comparison limit: Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run. Kimi K2.6 official model card · Evaluation Results table, OJBench (python), column 4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
OSWorld-Verified	Agentic	72.7% Reported settings & source Kimi K2.6 card, OSWorld-Verified. Thinking mode; temperature 1.0, top-p 1.0, context 262144. Comparator settings: GPT-5.4 xhigh, Opus4.6 max, Gemini3.1Pro high. See benchmark-specific footnotes. Only own K2.6 and starred re-evaluations can form new comparisons. Source SHA256 95db3be1d0473e482c7aa901f237ad7af8bb7929625a777b27428081bb8ea9f7. Cited from another official report; does not establish a new same-protocol evaluation. Comparison limit: Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run. Kimi K2.6 official model card · Evaluation Results table, OSWorld-Verified, column 4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
SciCode	Coding	51.9% Reported settings & source Kimi K2.6 card, SciCode. Thinking mode; temperature 1.0, top-p 1.0, context 262144. Comparator settings: GPT-5.4 xhigh, Opus4.6 max, Gemini3.1Pro high. See benchmark-specific footnotes. Only own K2.6 and starred re-evaluations can form new comparisons. Coding: average of ten runs; Terminal uses Terminus2 preserve-thinking; SWE uses in-house SWE-agent. Source SHA256 95db3be1d0473e482c7aa901f237ad7af8bb7929625a777b27428081bb8ea9f7. Cited from another official report; does not establish a new same-protocol evaluation. Comparison limit: Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run. Kimi K2.6 official model card · Evaluation Results table, SciCode, column 4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
SWE-Bench Multilingual	Coding	77.8% Reported settings & source Kimi K2.6 card, SWE-Bench Multilingual. Thinking mode; temperature 1.0, top-p 1.0, context 262144. Comparator settings: GPT-5.4 xhigh, Opus4.6 max, Gemini3.1Pro high. See benchmark-specific footnotes. Only own K2.6 and starred re-evaluations can form new comparisons. Coding: average of ten runs; Terminal uses Terminus2 preserve-thinking; SWE uses in-house SWE-agent. Source SHA256 95db3be1d0473e482c7aa901f237ad7af8bb7929625a777b27428081bb8ea9f7. Cited from another official report; does not establish a new same-protocol evaluation. Comparison limit: Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run. Kimi K2.6 official model card · Evaluation Results table, SWE-Bench Multilingual, column 4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
SWE-bench Pro	Coding	51.9%	SWE-bench Pro reported Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	official board	2026-04-08
SWE-Bench Pro	Coding	53.4% Reported settings & source Kimi K2.6 card, SWE-Bench Pro. Thinking mode; temperature 1.0, top-p 1.0, context 262144. Comparator settings: GPT-5.4 xhigh, Opus4.6 max, Gemini3.1Pro high. See benchmark-specific footnotes. Only own K2.6 and starred re-evaluations can form new comparisons. Coding: average of ten runs; Terminal uses Terminus2 preserve-thinking; SWE uses in-house SWE-agent. Source SHA256 95db3be1d0473e482c7aa901f237ad7af8bb7929625a777b27428081bb8ea9f7. Cited from another official report; does not establish a new same-protocol evaluation. Comparison limit: Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run. Kimi K2.6 official model card · Evaluation Results table, SWE-Bench Pro, column 4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
SWE-bench Pro · source release snapshot; version not specified	Coding	53.4% Reported settings & source MAI avg 4 runs, temperature 1, top-p .97; simple ReAct bash/string-replace; Terminal-Bench ignores predefined timeouts. Comparator configurations from cited reports. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MAI-Thinking-1 technical report · Table 11, PDF page 53 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
SWE-bench Verified	Coding	75.6%	SWE-bench Verified official Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	official board	2026-02-17
SWE-Bench Verified	Coding	80.8% Reported settings & source Kimi K2.6 card, SWE-Bench Verified. Thinking mode; temperature 1.0, top-p 1.0, context 262144. Comparator settings: GPT-5.4 xhigh, Opus4.6 max, Gemini3.1Pro high. See benchmark-specific footnotes. Only own K2.6 and starred re-evaluations can form new comparisons. Coding: average of ten runs; Terminal uses Terminus2 preserve-thinking; SWE uses in-house SWE-agent. Source SHA256 95db3be1d0473e482c7aa901f237ad7af8bb7929625a777b27428081bb8ea9f7. Cited from another official report; does not establish a new same-protocol evaluation. Comparison limit: Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run. Kimi K2.6 official model card · Evaluation Results table, SWE-Bench Verified, column 4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
SWE-bench Verified · source release snapshot; version not specified	Coding	80.8% Reported settings & source MAI avg 4 runs, temperature 1, top-p .97; simple ReAct bash/string-replace; Terminal-Bench ignores predefined timeouts. Comparator configurations from cited reports. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MAI-Thinking-1 technical report · Table 11, PDF page 53 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · 2.0	Coding	65.4% Reported settings & source MAI avg 4 runs, temperature 1, top-p .97; simple ReAct bash/string-replace; Terminal-Bench ignores predefined timeouts. Comparator configurations from cited reports. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MAI-Thinking-1 technical report · Table 11, PDF page 53 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Microsoft report Table 11 and section 4.1: MAI Terminal-Bench removes timeouts and uses a minimal ReAct harness; comparator values are cited from other model releases. A common evaluation protocol is not established.	Reviewed 2026-09-06
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Terminus-2)	Coding	65.4% Reported settings & source Kimi K2.6 card, Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Terminus-2). Thinking mode; temperature 1.0, top-p 1.0, context 262144. Comparator settings: GPT-5.4 xhigh, Opus4.6 max, Gemini3.1Pro high. See benchmark-specific footnotes. Only own K2.6 and starred re-evaluations can form new comparisons. Coding: average of ten runs; Terminal uses Terminus2 preserve-thinking; SWE uses in-house SWE-agent. Source SHA256 95db3be1d0473e482c7aa901f237ad7af8bb7929625a777b27428081bb8ea9f7. Cited from another official report; does not establish a new same-protocol evaluation. Comparison limit: Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run. Kimi K2.6 official model card · Evaluation Results table, Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Terminus-2), column 4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
ThinkingBox-Bench	Supporting evidence	32.09%	ThinkingBox-Bench pass@1 Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-10-03
Toolathlon	Agentic	47.2% Reported settings & source Kimi K2.6 card, Toolathlon. Thinking mode; temperature 1.0, top-p 1.0, context 262144. Comparator settings: GPT-5.4 xhigh, Opus4.6 max, Gemini3.1Pro high. See benchmark-specific footnotes. Only own K2.6 and starred re-evaluations can form new comparisons. Source SHA256 95db3be1d0473e482c7aa901f237ad7af8bb7929625a777b27428081bb8ea9f7. Cited from another official report; does not establish a new same-protocol evaluation. Comparison limit: Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run. Kimi K2.6 official model card · Evaluation Results table, Toolathlon, column 4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Cited comparator requires original evaluation provenance; not a new matched run.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
V* (w/ python)	Supporting evidence	86.4% Reported settings & source Kimi K2.6 card, V* (w/ python). Thinking mode; temperature 1.0, top-p 1.0, context 262144. Comparator settings: GPT-5.4 xhigh, Opus4.6 max, Gemini3.1Pro high. See benchmark-specific footnotes. Only own K2.6 and starred re-evaluations can form new comparisons. Vision: 98304 tokens, average of three runs; Python condition uses 65536 tokens per step, at most50steps. Source SHA256 95db3be1d0473e482c7aa901f237ad7af8bb7929625a777b27428081bb8ea9f7. Own measurement or explicitly starred same-condition re-evaluation. Assess benchmark-specific protocol before admission. Kimi K2.6 official model card · Evaluation Results table, V* (w/ python), column 4 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-10-18
ARC-AGI-2	Hard reasoning	—	—	—	—
DeepSWE v1.1	Agentic	—	—	—	—
GDPval-AA	Agentic	—	—	—	—
GPQA Diamond	Hard reasoning	—	—	—	—
Humanity's Last Exam	Hard reasoning	—	—	—	—
LiveCodeBench	Coding	—	—	—	—
MMLU-Pro	Knowledge	—	—	—	—
OSWorld-Verified	Agentic	—	—	—	—
Terminal-Bench 2.1	Agentic	—	—	—	—