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 →

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
SWE-bench Pro	Coding	89.9% Reported settings & source Adaptive thinking at max effort; default sampling; five-trial mean; context at most 1M. SWE-bench Pro problems from actively maintained repositories with large multi-file diffs. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Launch grid shows 89.9%. 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 8.2 · 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
SWE-sweep	Supporting evidence	3.61%	SWE-sweep · xhigh Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-10-08
Terminal-Bench · 4.0	Coding	66.36% Reported settings & source Claude Code --bare; xhigh thinking effort; safeguards enabled with server-side fallback (2.5% of requests, 10% of trials); five trials per task (330 trials) on 66 tasks. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. Table 8.1.A and the launch grid round this xhigh result to 66.4%. Section 8.5 states 66.36%. 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 8.5 · 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
Terminal-Bench · 4.0	Coding	64.8% Reported settings & source Claude Code --bare; max thinking effort; safeguards enabled with the default server-side fallback; five trials per task on 66 tasks. Section 8.5 says this is within noise of xhigh. 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 8.5 · 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
Terminal-Bench · 4.0	Coding	66.4% Reported settings & source Comparator maximum available thinking/reasoning when reported, otherwise best available result; exact setting not identified by this grid. Argon self-computed; other models from the official public leaderboard. Highest scoring thinking level reported by Terminal-Bench authors. Argon agent identity is not specified in this methodology. Provider-published launch claim, not independent measurement by Google for every row. Argon self-computed; other models from the official public leaderboard. Highest scoring thinking level reported by Terminal-Bench authors. Argon agent identity is not specified in this methodology. 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 8: Terminal-Bench 4.0 / 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
Terminal-Bench Science 0.1 · 0.1	Agentic	63.33% Reported settings & source Reported reasoning effort max. Scientific research workflows using code and terminal tools, including analysis, simulation and model fitting. 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 $23.2108; 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: Terminal-Bench Science 0.1 / 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
Terminal-Bench-Science · 0.1	Coding	58.7% Reported settings & source Claude Code --bare; max thinking effort; safeguards enabled with server-side fallback (3.9% of requests, 5% of trials); 10 trials per task (700 trials) on 70 tasks. Provider-published lab self-report from the Claude Opus 5.5 system card (SHA256 7311c9c6bbb16d012f1c12c7418b05949fcf7ae3e30d2c40f22050074b2a7378). Not an independent board. The Anthropic launch grid at https://www.anthropic.com/claude-opus-5-5 shows 58.7%. 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 8.6 · 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
Terminal-Bench-Science · 0.1	Coding	63.3% Reported settings & source Comparator maximum available thinking/reasoning when reported, otherwise best available result; exact setting not identified by this grid. Argon self-computed with 6x verifier timeout to address verification timeout issues. Other models from the official public leaderboard. Modified verifier timeout is excluded from matched comparison. Provider-published launch claim, not independent measurement by Google for every row. Argon self-computed with 6x verifier timeout to address verification timeout issues. Other models from the official public leaderboard. Modified verifier timeout is excluded from matched comparison. 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 10: Terminal-Bench Science 0.1 / 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
ThinkingBox-Bench	Supporting evidence	67.16%	ThinkingBox-Bench pass@1 Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-10-03
Toolathlon · Verified June2026	Agentic	77.8% Reported settings & source Pass@1; 108 tasks; three trials; internal harness mirroring Toolathlon-Verified; adaptive thinking at max effort; safety classifiers on; one safety stop and six sandbox-monitor halts counted as failures. 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 8.14.5.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
Toolathlon · Verified June2026	Agentic	82.4% Reported settings & source Pass@3 (at least one of three trials correct); 108 tasks; internal harness; adaptive thinking at max effort; safety classifiers on. 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 8.14.5.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
Toolathlon · Verified June2026	Agentic	72.2% Reported settings & source Pass³ (all three trials correct); 108 tasks; internal harness; adaptive thinking at max effort; safety classifiers on. 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 8.14.5.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
Vals Finance Agent · 2	Supporting evidence	58.6% Reported settings & source Comparator maximum available thinking/reasoning when reported, otherwise best available result; exact setting not identified by this grid. Results sourced from Vals AI. Provider-published launch claim, not independent measurement by Google for every row. Results sourced from Vals AI. 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 3: Vals Finance Agent 2 / 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
Vals Index	Supporting evidence	67% Reported settings & source Comparator maximum available thinking/reasoning when reported, otherwise best available result; exact setting not identified by this grid. Vals AI composite, weighted by contribution to US GDP; overlapping component benchmarks do not add an aggregate ranking vote. Provider-published launch claim, not independent measurement by Google for every row. Vals AI composite, weighted by contribution to US GDP; overlapping component benchmarks do not add an aggregate ranking vote. 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 1: Vals Index / 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
Vibe Code Bench · 1.1	Supporting evidence	90.3% Reported settings & source Comparator maximum available thinking/reasoning when reported, otherwise best available result; exact setting not identified by this grid. Results sourced from the official Vals AI public leaderboard. Provider-published launch claim, not independent measurement by Google for every row. Results sourced from the official Vals AI 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 7: Vibe Code Bench 1.1 / 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
DeepSWE v1.1	Agentic	—	—	—	—
GDPval-AA	Agentic	—	—	—	—
GPQA Diamond	Hard reasoning	—	—	—	—
Humanity's Last Exam	Hard reasoning	—	—	—	—
LiveCodeBench	Coding	—	—	—	—
LMArena Text Arena	Human pref	—	—	—	—
MMLU-Pro	Knowledge	—	—	—	—
OSWorld-Verified	Agentic	—	—	—	—
SWE-bench Pro	Agentic	—	—	—	—
SWE-bench Verified	Agentic	—	—	—	—