Skip to content

RankingClaude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5

Data updated 22 Sept 2026

24 published benchmark measures · 0 benchmark families contribute across 0 task areas. 0 capability estimates available in the full profile. See all results ↓ · Compare published benchmarks →

Current configurationSources

Compare with

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

Compare withModel and configuration

Choose a configuration to compare. The overview below combines evidence across settings and has no model-wide rank.

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; 11/11 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 reasoningNo 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; 7/7 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.

CodingNo 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; 7/7 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 19/19 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.

Human prefNo 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; 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.

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 · Mixed settings

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.

Auto thinking: 2 observations
High: 2 observations
Max: 31 observations
Medium: 3 observations
XHigh: 4 observations
Not specified: 2 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

0 contributing families across 0 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: 2026-09-22
Context: 1,000,000 tokens
API list price: $4 input / $20 output per million tokens
License: proprietary
Model card: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/models/opus-5-5/overview
Default Capability family coverage: /badge/claude-opus-5-5.svg

Benchmark scores & sources

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

Benchmark	Bucket	Score	Harness	Evidence	Source-recorded date
AA-Briefcase · 1.1	Supporting evidence	1822 Reported settings & source Artificial Analysis AA-Briefcase v1.1; long-horizon knowledge projects; rubric scoring and pairwise judging; max effort. Run by Artificial Analysis. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · Table 8.1.A; section 8.14.4 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
AA-Briefcase · 1.1	Supporting evidence	1780 Reported settings & source Artificial Analysis AA-Briefcase v1.1; long-horizon knowledge projects; rubric scoring and pairwise judging; xhigh effort. Run by Artificial Analysis. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.14.4 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: XHigh	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
AA-Briefcase · 1.1	Supporting evidence	1705 Reported settings & source Artificial Analysis AA-Briefcase v1.1; long-horizon knowledge projects; rubric scoring and pairwise judging; high effort. Run by Artificial Analysis. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.14.4 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: High	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
AutomationBench	Agentic	40% Reported settings & source Zapier private held-out leaderboard; simulated business workflows; every deterministic assertion must pass; max effort. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Launch grid shows 40.0%. Launch footnote 2 says Zapier ran these without fallback models and counted safeguard interventions as failures. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · Table 8.1.A; section 8.14.6 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
BenchCAD · Vision2Code 1000-file subset	Supporting evidence	0.73 voxel IoU Reported settings & source Random 1,000 of 17,900 Vision2Code files; five runs; adaptive thinking at max effort; no tools; views rendered at 256x256 px, the resolution Anthropic says matches the reference implementation. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Earlier cards used 128x128 px renders. This section publishes the corrected resolution. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.13.2 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
BenchCAD · Vision2Code 1000-file subset	Supporting evidence	0.962 voxel IoU Reported settings & source Random 1,000 of 17,900 Vision2Code files; five runs; adaptive thinking at max effort; with tools (container, image files, standard libraries, and an image cropping tool); 256x256 px views. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.13.2 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
Chartography	Multimodal	64.4% Reported settings & source 100 tasks; adaptive thinking at max effort; five runs; no tools; Gemini 3.5 Flash grader; expert acceptable ranges. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.13.1 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
Chartography	Multimodal	89% Reported settings & source 100 tasks; adaptive thinking at max effort; five runs; with tools (container, image file, standard libraries, and an image cropping tool); Gemini 3.5 Flash grader. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Launch grid shows 89.0% with tools. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.13.1 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
CursorBench · 4.0	Supporting evidence	57.8% Reported settings & source Cursor production agent harness; max effort. Independently measured by Cursor; Anthropic estimated cost from Cursor token counts. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Launch grid shows 57.8%. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.8 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
CursorBench · 4.0	Supporting evidence	56% Reported settings & source Cursor production agent harness; xhigh effort. Independently measured by Cursor. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.8 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: XHigh	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
CursorBench · 4.0	Supporting evidence	56% Reported settings & source Cursor production agent harness; high effort. Independently measured by Cursor. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.8 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: High	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
CursorBench · 4.0	Supporting evidence	52.5% Reported settings & source Cursor production agent harness; medium effort. Independently measured by Cursor. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Launch-page prose also states 52.5% at default (medium) effort. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.8 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Medium	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
DeepSWE · 1.1	Coding	74.2% Reported settings & source 113 long-horizon tasks; five-trial mean. Section 8.3 does not state reasoning effort. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Effort is not stated in this section, so it is not copied from the Table 8.1.A max-effort default. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.3 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
FrontierCode · 1.1 Extended	Supporting evidence	65.3% Reported settings & source Cognition agentic coding in Claude Code; composite functional and code-quality score; medium effort; mean@5. Highest Extended score. Cognition ran the evaluation. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.4 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Medium	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
FrontierCode · 1.1 Extended	Supporting evidence	63.6% Reported settings & source Cognition agentic coding in Claude Code; composite functional and code-quality score; max effort; mean@5. Cognition ran the evaluation. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.4 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
FrontierCode · 1.1 Main	Supporting evidence	54.4% Reported settings & source Cognition agentic coding in Claude Code; composite functional and code-quality score; max effort; mean@5. Cognition ran the evaluation. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Launch grid shows 54.4% for FrontierCode v1.1 (Main). Section 8.4 says performance falls above medium effort and this max-effort score is 54.4%. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · Table 8.1.A; section 8.4 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
FrontierCode · 1.1 Main	Supporting evidence	54.6% Reported settings & source Cognition agentic coding in Claude Code; composite functional and code-quality score; medium effort; mean@5. Highest Main score. Cognition ran the evaluation. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Launch-page prose also states 54.6% at default (medium) effort. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.4 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Medium	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
FrontierSWE · 2	Supporting evidence	62.3% Reported settings & source Proximal agent harness; max reasoning effort; 34 tasks; five trials per task; mean across trials. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.7 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
GDPval-AA · 2.1	Agentic	1846 Reported settings & source Artificial Analysis GDPval-AA v2.1; 220 GDPval gold tasks; blind pairwise Elo anchored to DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) at 1600; max effort. Run by Artificial Analysis. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Launch grid shows 1846. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · Table 8.1.A; section 8.14.3 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
GDPval-AA · 2.1	Agentic	1820 Reported settings & source Artificial Analysis GDPval-AA v2.1; 220 GDPval gold tasks; blind pairwise Elo anchored to DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) at 1600; xhigh effort. Run by Artificial Analysis. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.14.3 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: XHigh	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
GMMLU	Knowledge	94.3% Reported settings & source Average accuracy across 42 languages; adaptive thinking at max effort; single trial; no tools or custom system prompt. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.16.1; Figure 8.16.1.A · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
HealthBench	Supporting evidence	68.1% Reported settings & source Raw rubric score; adaptive thinking at max effort; five trials; no tools or custom system prompt; Opus 4.8 grader; safety classifiers with refusal fallback to Opus 5. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.15.1 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
HealthBench	Supporting evidence	60.6% Reported settings & source Length-adjusted score using the GPT-5.5 system-card method; otherwise the raw HealthBench configuration: adaptive max, five trials, no tools, Opus 4.8 grader, safety fallback to Opus 5. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.15.1 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
HealthBench Professional	Supporting evidence	77.1% Reported settings & source Raw rubric score; adaptive thinking at max effort; five trials; no tools or custom system prompt; Opus 4.8 grader; safety classifiers with refusal fallback to Opus 5. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · section 8.15.2 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22
HealthBench Professional	Supporting evidence	65.6% Reported settings & source Length-adjusted score using the HealthBench Professional paper method; adaptive max; five trials; no tools; Opus 4.8 grader; safety fallback to Opus 5. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Table 8.1.A's 65.6 is this length-adjusted score, not the raw 77.1%. Comparison limit: Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card · Table 8.1.A; section 8.15.2 · reviewed 2026-09-22	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Provider-published lab self-report. Shown as a labeled claim and not admitted as a matched board comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-22