RankingClaude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5

Data updated 31 Oct 2026

51 published benchmark measures · 1 benchmark families contribute across 1 task areas. 1 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; 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 reasoning1 families · 1 with independent evidence · Preliminary83.8

1 core families; 59 direct opponents across 10 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.

ARC-AGI: 96.6 observed win share
arcprize.org · Source 1

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; 6/6 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: 4 observations
Low: 2 observations
Max: 34 observations
Medium: 5 observations
XHigh: 6 observations
Not specified: 37 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

1 contributing families across 1 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
Agent's Last Exam	Supporting evidence	38.2% Reported settings & source Comparator maximum available thinking/reasoning when reported, otherwise best available result; exact setting not identified by this grid. Argon self-computed in default ALE-Claw harness with a five-hour window and safety filters. Flagged responses return empty strings; episode may continue. Astra and Opus from the official board. Binary pass rate. Fable absent. Provider-published launch claim, not independent measurement by Google for every row. Argon self-computed in default ALE-Claw harness with a five-hour window and safety filters. Flagged responses return empty strings; episode may continue. Astra and Opus from the official board. Binary pass rate. Fable absent. Methodology https://deepmind.google/models/evals-methodology/gemini-4-argon, SHA256 ff1df6bdeddc4c0f48840c09a8a7813b10ae7ad9e053892da68dabf64f09bff7. Preserve source rounding. Methodology says capabilities as of September 2026 and results as of October 2026; review date is source retrieval, not evaluation date. Comparison limit: Provider-published claim. Independent source results are admitted separately with exact checkpoint, effort and compatible protocol; this grid does not establish a matched comparison. Google Gemini 4 Argon launch and evaluation methodology · Launch grid row 15: Agent's Last Exam / Claude Opus 5.5; methodology Additional Details · reviewed 2026-09-30	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Provider-published claim. Independent source results are admitted separately with exact checkpoint, effort and compatible protocol; this grid does not establish a matched comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-30
Agents' Last Exam	Supporting evidence	38.2%	Agents' Last Exam · Claude Code Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-10-20
ARC-AGI-2	Hard reasoning	93.3%	ARC Prize verified Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	official board	2026-09-22
Artificial Analysis Cyber Index	Supporting evidence	28.6636152579411	Artificial Analysis Stirrup · Cyber Index v1.0 · max Effort: Max Cyber Index source settings Artificial Analysis Stirrup, v1.0. Display only. This composite measures defensive source-code tasks. Successful capability scores depend on safety refusals, and refusal rates are reported separately. It does not enter weighted Overall. Official Cyber Index board	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-10-31
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
AutomationBench	Agentic	42.5% Reported settings & source Comparator maximum available thinking/reasoning when reported, otherwise best available result; exact setting not identified by this grid. Private test set; results sourced from the official Zapier public leaderboard. Provider-published launch claim, not independent measurement by Google for every row. Private test set; results sourced from the official Zapier public leaderboard. Methodology https://deepmind.google/models/evals-methodology/gemini-4-argon, SHA256 ff1df6bdeddc4c0f48840c09a8a7813b10ae7ad9e053892da68dabf64f09bff7. Preserve source rounding. Methodology says capabilities as of September 2026 and results as of October 2026; review date is source retrieval, not evaluation date. Comparison limit: Provider-published claim. Independent source results are admitted separately with exact checkpoint, effort and compatible protocol; this grid does not establish a matched comparison. Google Gemini 4 Argon launch and evaluation methodology · Launch grid row 2: AutomationBench / Claude Opus 5.5; methodology Additional Details · reviewed 2026-09-30	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Provider-published claim. Independent source results are admitted separately with exact checkpoint, effort and compatible protocol; this grid does not establish a matched comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-30
AutomationBench · 1.0.6	Agentic	24.2% Reported settings & source Reported reasoning effort low. End-to-end business workflows using 47 tools across six business functions. OpenAI research environment or API; same named metric and evaluation chart. Reported combined setup: Opus 5.5 w/ fallbacks. Fallback behavior must not be attributed to the base model alone. Provider-published lab self-report. Published chart cost per task $0.51; source-specific cost does not establish consensus workload efficiency. Competitor results are republished from public reports; the page does not establish independent reproduction by OpenAI. Comparison limit: Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting. Introducing GPT-6.1 Sol · Chart: AutomationBench / Opus 5.5 w/ fallbacks / low · reviewed 2026-09-29	Published configuration Effort: Low	lab self-report Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting.	Reviewed 2026-09-29
AutomationBench · 1.0.6	Agentic	29.53% Reported settings & source Reported reasoning effort medium. End-to-end business workflows using 47 tools across six business functions. OpenAI research environment or API; same named metric and evaluation chart. Reported combined setup: Opus 5.5 w/ fallbacks. Fallback behavior must not be attributed to the base model alone. Provider-published lab self-report. Published chart cost per task $0.65; source-specific cost does not establish consensus workload efficiency. Competitor results are republished from public reports; the page does not establish independent reproduction by OpenAI. Comparison limit: Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting. Introducing GPT-6.1 Sol · Chart: AutomationBench / Opus 5.5 w/ fallbacks / medium · reviewed 2026-09-29	Published configuration Effort: Medium	lab self-report Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting.	Reviewed 2026-09-29
AutomationBench · 1.0.6	Agentic	33.03% Reported settings & source Reported reasoning effort high. End-to-end business workflows using 47 tools across six business functions. OpenAI research environment or API; same named metric and evaluation chart. Reported combined setup: Opus 5.5 w/ fallbacks. Fallback behavior must not be attributed to the base model alone. Provider-published lab self-report. Published chart cost per task $0.71; source-specific cost does not establish consensus workload efficiency. Competitor results are republished from public reports; the page does not establish independent reproduction by OpenAI. Comparison limit: Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting. Introducing GPT-6.1 Sol · Chart: AutomationBench / Opus 5.5 w/ fallbacks / high · reviewed 2026-09-29	Published configuration Effort: High	lab self-report Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting.	Reviewed 2026-09-29
AutomationBench · 1.0.6	Agentic	35.77% Reported settings & source Reported reasoning effort xhigh. End-to-end business workflows using 47 tools across six business functions. OpenAI research environment or API; same named metric and evaluation chart. Reported combined setup: Opus 5.5 w/ fallbacks. Fallback behavior must not be attributed to the base model alone. Provider-published lab self-report. Published chart cost per task $0.89; source-specific cost does not establish consensus workload efficiency. Competitor results are republished from public reports; the page does not establish independent reproduction by OpenAI. Comparison limit: Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting. Introducing GPT-6.1 Sol · Chart: AutomationBench / Opus 5.5 w/ fallbacks / xhigh · reviewed 2026-09-29	Published configuration Effort: XHigh	lab self-report Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting.	Reviewed 2026-09-29
AutomationBench · 1.0.6	Agentic	42.47% Reported settings & source Reported reasoning effort max. End-to-end business workflows using 47 tools across six business functions. OpenAI research environment or API; same named metric and evaluation chart. Reported combined setup: Opus 5.5 w/ fallbacks. Fallback behavior must not be attributed to the base model alone. Provider-published lab self-report. Published chart cost per task $1.44; source-specific cost does not establish consensus workload efficiency. Competitor results are republished from public reports; the page does not establish independent reproduction by OpenAI. Comparison limit: Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting. Introducing GPT-6.1 Sol · Chart: AutomationBench / Opus 5.5 w/ fallbacks / max · reviewed 2026-09-29	Published configuration Effort: Max	lab self-report Combined fallback setup is not the named base model at one effort setting.	Reviewed 2026-09-29
AutomationBench-AA	Supporting evidence	69.5386812863607%	Artificial Analysis AutomationBench-AA Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-10-30
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
Bug Hunt Bench	Supporting evidence	39.71%	Bug Hunt Bench · max Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-09-23
Bug Hunt Bench	Supporting evidence	30.19%	Bug Hunt Bench · high Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-09-23
Bug Hunt Bench	Supporting evidence	34.29%	Bug Hunt Bench · xhigh Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-09-23
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
Chartography	Multimodal	66.3% Reported settings & source Comparator maximum available thinking/reasoning when reported, otherwise best available result; exact setting not identified by this grid. Without tools; results from the official Surge public leaderboard. Provider-published launch claim, not independent measurement by Google for every row. Without tools; results from the official Surge public leaderboard. Methodology https://deepmind.google/models/evals-methodology/gemini-4-argon, SHA256 ff1df6bdeddc4c0f48840c09a8a7813b10ae7ad9e053892da68dabf64f09bff7. Preserve source rounding. Methodology says capabilities as of September 2026 and results as of October 2026; review date is source retrieval, not evaluation date. Comparison limit: Provider-published claim. Independent source results are admitted separately with exact checkpoint, effort and compatible protocol; this grid does not establish a matched comparison. Google Gemini 4 Argon launch and evaluation methodology · Launch grid row 17: Chartography / Claude Opus 5.5; methodology Additional Details · reviewed 2026-09-30	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Provider-published claim. Independent source results are admitted separately with exact checkpoint, effort and compatible protocol; this grid does not establish a matched comparison.	Reviewed 2026-09-30
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