RankingClaude Opus 5

Claude Opus 5

Data updated 22 Oct 2026

78 published benchmark measures · 22 benchmark families contribute across 6 task areas. 4 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.

Agentic8 families · 2 with independent evidence · Supported82.9

8 core families; 54 direct opponents across 17 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: 79.3–88.3; 0/13 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: 77.4–87.3; 0/15 unsupported. Smoothing check: 74.4–87.3; 0/3 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.

OSWorld: 63.7 observed win share
Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, os-world.github.io · Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Source 6
GDPval: 91.7 observed win share
Anthropic, Google, Meta, artificialanalysis.ai · Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4
AutomationBench: 72.2 observed win share
Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI · Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
OfficeQA: 0.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1 Source 2
GDP.pdf: 80.0 observed win share
Google · Source 1
DeepSearchQA: 50.0 observed win share
Meta · Source 1
Browsecomp: 66.7 observed win share
OpenAI · Source 1
Terminal-Bench Science: 50.0 observed win share
OpenAI · Source 1

Hard reasoning4 families · 1 with independent evidence · Supported75.3

4 core families; 60 direct opponents across 10 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: 60.8–80.1; 0/6 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: 67.6–77.8; 0/16 unsupported. Smoothing check: 68.5–78.6; 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.

GPQA: 65.0 observed win share
OpenAI, artificialanalysis.ai · Source 1 Source 2
ARC-AGI: 69.4 observed win share
Anthropic, OpenAI, arcprize.org · Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Source 6
Humanity’s Last Exam: 31.1 observed win share
Anthropic, Google, OpenAI · Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4
FrontierMath: 0.0 observed win share
OpenAI · Source 1

Coding4 families · 2 with independent evidence · Supported92.7

4 core families; 35 direct opponents across 9 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: 88.2–94.6; 0/6 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: 87.5–93.9; 0/19 unsupported. Smoothing check: 84.3–96.3; 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.

Terminal-Bench: 72.7 observed win share
Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, tbench.ai · Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4
DeepSWE: 76.3 observed win share
OpenAI, deepswe.datacurve.ai · Source 1 Source 2
SWE-bench Multilingual: 100.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1
SWE-bench Pro: 33.3 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1

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): 97.4 observed win share
lmarena.ai · Source 1

Knowledge2 families · 0 with independent evidence · PreliminaryUnknown

2 core families; 2 direct opponents across 1 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; 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.

Gmmlu: 0.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1
Milu: 0.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1

Multimodal3 families · 0 with independent evidence · Preliminary49.4

3 core families; 7 direct opponents across 3 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; 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.

Chartography: 0.0 observed win share
Anthropic · Source 1 Source 2
CharXiv: 20.0 observed win share
Google · Source 1
Lvbench: 100.0 observed win share
Google · Source 1

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
Max: 19 observations
Not specified: 100 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

22 contributing families across 6 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: 1,000,000 tokens
License: proprietary
Model card: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/model-deprecations
Default Capability family coverage: /badge/claude-opus-5.svg

Benchmark scores & sources

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

Benchmark	Bucket	Score	Harness	Evidence	Source-recorded date
LMArena Agent Arena	Supporting evidence	7.95	LMArena Agent Arena · high Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-10-08
LMArena Text Arena	Human pref	1491	LMArena Text Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	official board	2026-10-20
LVBench · static	Multimodal	75.4% Reported settings & source No tools;1024frames Gemini/GPT,300frames Claude dueAPIlimit; model-specific frame budget: 300 Frame budgets differ; table labels Gemini3.8static explicitly. Gemini3.8Flash Model Card · Model card page5 Results table · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
MILU	Knowledge	92.1% Reported settings & source Mean accuracy11languages; adaptive max; five trials; no tools/custom system prompts. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.18.2 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-10-18
OfficeQA	Agentic	78.1% Reported settings & source Extracted-text Treasury corpus in sandbox; code execution; production Messages API with safeguards/fallback;128koutput cap. Pro133questions. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.15.1 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-10-18
OfficeQA Pro	Agentic	66.9% Reported settings & source Extracted-text Treasury corpus in sandbox; code execution; production Messages API with safeguards/fallback;128koutput cap. Pro133questions. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.15.1 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-10-18
Organic Chemistry · 2 revised	Supporting evidence	65.7% Reported settings & source Anthropic life-sciences evaluation; bash/editor/packages except protein design no tools; protocols use bash/editor/search; Understanding revised network restriction. Internal evaluation; not necessarily publicly released; compare only same task/grader revision. Percent rank correlation is not accuracy. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.19 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
OSWorld · 2.0 August2026 task release	Agentic	75.4% Reported settings & source partial pass@1;108tasks; five runs;1080p;500steps; max effort; Opus4.8grader; task fixes; Fable safety interventions score zero. Same-condition reruns; supersedes earlier OSWorld2results and incompatible with previous task files. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.14.3 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-10-18
OSWorld · 2.0 August2026 task release	Agentic	39.6% Reported settings & source strict pass@1;108tasks; five runs;1080p;500steps; max effort; Opus4.8grader; task fixes; Fable safety interventions score zero. Same-condition reruns; supersedes earlier OSWorld2results and incompatible with previous task files. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.14.3 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Max contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-10-18
OSWorld 2.0 (v2026.08.08, offline set, partial score) · 2.0 / v2026.08.08 offline	Agentic	70.2% Reported settings & source Maximum reported across reasoning efforts; OpenAI research environment or API; offline set; partial credit; v2026.08.08; official task/grading settings Provider-published result; comparator measurements are not automatically independently reproduced. GPT-6 Astra: A new generation of intelligence · Computer Use table / OSWorld 2.0 (v2026.08.08, offline set, partial score) / Claude Opus 5 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
OSWorld binary · 2.0 08.08	Agentic	31.4% Reported settings & source 108tasks; common internal GUI framework; execution-based checkers; binary metric; reasoning max Muse1.2 uses older06.24tasks; all others08.08. Do not compare these versions as identical. Muse Spark1.3 evaluation methodology · PDF page4 performance table · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
OSWorld partial · 2.0 08.08	Agentic	68.3% Reported settings & source 108tasks; common internal GUI framework; execution-based checkers; partial metric; reasoning max Muse1.2 uses older06.24tasks; all others08.08. Do not compare these versions as identical. Muse Spark1.3 evaluation methodology · PDF page4 performance table · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
OSWorld partial · 2.0 August2026 fixed tasks	Agentic	75.4% Reported settings & source Partialscore; batchtools;1080p/500steps; Gemini/Sonnet bestof3runs; screenshotonly; officialCUAharness Methodology says runs pre08.08patch but Opusvalue fromFable5.1card usesAugustfixedtasks; no controlledsameversionclaim. GPT values providerreports. Gemini3.8Flash Model Card · Model card page5 Results table · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Mixed source task revisions and best-of-three versus provider reporting prevent a uniform common-core unit.	Reviewed 2026-09-06
OSWorld-Verified	Agentic	83.39%	OSWorld-Verified reported Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	official board	2026-08-01
ProgramBench · 166 golden-task subset	Supporting evidence	85.4% Reported settings & source mini-swe-agent without six-hour timeout; excludes34flaky-reference tasks; tests restricted to reference-passing tests; up to1Mcontext. Hidden-test pass rate, not fraction of completely solved programs. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.11.1 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-10-18
Protein Design · Library Ranking	Supporting evidence	48% Reported settings & source Anthropic life-sciences evaluation; bash/editor/packages except protein design no tools; protocols use bash/editor/search; Understanding revised network restriction. Internal evaluation; not necessarily publicly released; compare only same task/grader revision. Percent rank correlation is not accuracy. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.19 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
Protein Design · Sequence Generation revised grader	Supporting evidence	42.4% Reported settings & source Anthropic life-sciences evaluation; bash/editor/packages except protein design no tools; protocols use bash/editor/search; Understanding revised network restriction. Internal evaluation; not necessarily publicly released; compare only same task/grader revision. Percent rank correlation is not accuracy. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.19 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
ProteinGym · Hard	Supporting evidence	47.7 percent rank correlation Reported settings & source Anthropic life-sciences evaluation; bash/editor/packages except protein design no tools; protocols use bash/editor/search; Understanding revised network restriction. Internal evaluation; not necessarily publicly released; compare only same task/grader revision. Percent rank correlation is not accuracy. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.19 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
Protocols · Troubleshooting	Supporting evidence	61.1% Reported settings & source Anthropic life-sciences evaluation; bash/editor/packages except protein design no tools; protocols use bash/editor/search; Understanding revised network restriction. Internal evaluation; not necessarily publicly released; compare only same task/grader revision. Percent rank correlation is not accuracy. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.19 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
Protocols · Understanding network-restricted	Supporting evidence	80% Reported settings & source Anthropic life-sciences evaluation; bash/editor/packages except protein design no tools; protocols use bash/editor/search; Understanding revised network restriction. Internal evaluation; not necessarily publicly released; compare only same task/grader revision. Percent rank correlation is not accuracy. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.19 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
SingleCellBench	Supporting evidence	60.6% Reported settings & source Anthropic life-sciences evaluation; bash/editor/packages except protein design no tools; protocols use bash/editor/search; Understanding revised network restriction. Internal evaluation; not necessarily publicly released; compare only same task/grader revision. Percent rank correlation is not accuracy. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.19 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
SpatialBench · Verified	Supporting evidence	72.5% Reported settings & source Anthropic life-sciences evaluation; bash/editor/packages except protein design no tools; protocols use bash/editor/search; Understanding revised network restriction. Internal evaluation; not necessarily publicly released; compare only same task/grader revision. Percent rank correlation is not accuracy. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · 8.19 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.	Reviewed 2026-10-18
SRE-Bench · 262 binaries / 19 programs	Supporting evidence	12.5% Reported settings & source Maximum reported across reasoning efforts; OpenAI research environment or API; reduced or absent production safeguards; pass@1; all six objectives required Provider-published result; comparator measurements are not automatically independently reproduced. GPT-6 Astra: A new generation of intelligence · Cybersecurity table / SRE-Bench / Claude Opus 5 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA	Supporting evidence	52.7% Reported settings & source 124tasks/11repos; publicQnA mini-swe-agent rubric pass@1; GPT/Opus owncards; reasoning max Muse Spark1.3 evaluation methodology · PDF page4 performance table · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
SWE-bench Multilingual	Coding	89.5% Reported settings & source Anthropic reported configuration; adaptive thinking at max effort, default sampling, five-trial mean unless section specifies otherwise; context at most 1M. Comparator configuration follows cited prior card or board. Agent identity is not established as mini-swe-agent. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 System Card · Table 8.1.A; section 8.2 · reviewed 2026-10-18	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-10-18