Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Agents-A1

InternScience

61.3/100

Estimated · Public rank #53

90% interval 51.4–71.1

Agents-A1 vs Claude Opus 4.6

Updated August 21, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Claude Opus 4.6

Anthropic

67.8/100

Supported · Public rank #23

90% interval 54.2–81.4

Decision reading

Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.8 versus 61.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

2 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Opus 4.6

    Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
2
Agents-A1 only
4
Claude Opus 4.6 only
31
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Directional only
Agents-A1
75.5
Claude Opus 4.6
73.0
Weighted basis
1 vs 3 rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Agents-A1
47.6
Claude Opus 4.6
69.1
Weighted basis
1 vs 4 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Not comparable
Agents-A1
Not measured
Claude Opus 4.6
68.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 3 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Agents-A1
60.2
Claude Opus 4.6
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Agents-A1
Not measured
Claude Opus 4.6
36.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Agents-A1
Not measured
Claude Opus 4.6
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Agents-A1
Not measured
Claude Opus 4.6
77.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Agents-A1
94.8
Claude Opus 4.6
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Agents-A1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Claude Opus 4.6
$0.0175
Fits in one request

Agents-A1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Agents-A1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Claude Opus 4.6
$0.325
Fits in one request

Agents-A1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Agents-A1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Opus 4.6
$1.35
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Agents-A1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Agents-A1

262K

Claude Opus 4.6

1M

API model ID

Agents-A1

Not sourced

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Agents-A1

No comparable hosted API rate

Claude Opus 4.6

Not published

Documented inputs

Agents-A1

Not sourced

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Agents-A1

Not sourced

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Provider availability

Agents-A1

Not sourced

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Agents-A1

Reasoning

Claude Opus 4.6

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Agents-A1

Open Weight

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

License

Agents-A1

Open Weight

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Release date

Agents-A1

2026-06-26

Claude Opus 4.6

2026-02-01

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.8 versus 61.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence37 rows

Agentic

  • BrowseComp

    Agents-A175.5%
    Source
    Claude Opus 4.683.7%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • HLE w/ tools

    Agents-A147.6%
    Source
    Claude Opus 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    Agents-A138.8%
    Source
    Claude Opus 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.665.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.672.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.670.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.673.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.666.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.661.85%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.619.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.636.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.680.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.675.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.670.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.653.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Rebench

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.665.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.684.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.657.57%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.626.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    Agents-A160.2%
    Source
    Claude Opus 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Agents-A147.6%
    Source
    Claude Opus 4.653%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • GPQA

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.691.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.689.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.695%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.682%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.689.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.640%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.614.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.652.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.699.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.640.700%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.622.900%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.677.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.651.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.683.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Opus 4.664.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Agents-A194.8%
    Source
    Claude Opus 4.6—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 4.6?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.8 versus 61.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 4.6?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 4.6?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 4.6?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 4.6?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 21, 2026

Watch Agents-A1 vs Claude Opus 4.6

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.