Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Agents-A1 vs Claude Opus 5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Agents-A1
InternScience
59.84/100
Margin
26.0pts
winning →
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
85.88/100
0 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Agents-A1 #49 (Estimated); Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Agents-A1 and Claude Opus 5 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Agents-A1; 76 to Claude Opus 5.

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
3
Agents-A1 only
3
Claude Opus 5 only
76
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Agents-A1 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 59.84. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 90.4 against 60.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 47.6% to 64.7%.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Agents-A1 and Claude Opus 5
CategoryAgents-A1ΔClaude Opus 5
ReasoningAgents-A160.2Margin→ 30.2Claude Opus 590.4
KnowledgeAgents-A147.6Margin→ 17.1Claude Opus 564.7
AgenticAgents-A175.5Margin→ 15.3Claude Opus 590.8
CodingAgents-A1Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 589.5
MultimodalAgents-A1Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 566.9
Inst. FollowingAgents-A194.8MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 5Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Agents-A1B · Claude Opus 5

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 47.6%B 64.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 17.1
    HLE: Agents-A1 scored 47.6%; Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.

  2. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 75.5%B 90.8%
    Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 15.3
    BrowseComp: Agents-A1 scored 75.5%; Claude Opus 5 scored 90.8%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricAgents-A1Claude Opus 5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensAgents-A1Not availableClaude Opus 5$5 input / $25 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondAgents-A1Not availableClaude Opus 5Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenAgents-A1Not availableClaude Opus 5Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensAgents-A1262KClaude Opus 5Not availableA complete context comparison is not available.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 5Result
BrowseCompSource 75.5%90.8%Claude Opus 5 leads
HLE w/ toolsSource 47.6%64.7%Claude Opus 5 leads
VITA-BenchSource 38.8%—Not comparable
FrontierBench v0.1Source —43.3%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —95.0%Not comparable
DRACOSource —88.6%Not comparable
BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source —93.6%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —70.6%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —85.8%Not comparable
MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource —89.1%Not comparable
LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source —23.58%Not comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source —93.74%Not comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source —11.7%Not comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source —94.1%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1861Not comparable
Toolathlon-VerifiedSource —80.6%Not comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source —87.0%Not comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source —73.1%Not comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource —23.5 turnsNot comparable
AutomationBenchSource —26.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —55.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —68.0%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —30.3%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1720Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —89.1%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 5Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —96%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —79.2%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —89.5%Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource —59.4%Not comparable
deepSweSource —68.8%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource —53.4%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource —63.6%Not comparable
ProgramBench (episode 1)Source —83.0%Not comparable
ProgramBenchSource —93.0%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —70.0%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —78.0%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —55.7%Not comparable
ReasoningClaude Opus 5 wins
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 5Result
LongBench v2Source 60.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-1Source —97.50%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source —90.4%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-3Source —30.2%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —70.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource —29.1%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 5Result
HLESource 47.6%64.7%Claude Opus 5 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource —56.3%Not comparable
HealthBench (raw)Source —67.1%Not comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source —57.8%Not comparable
HealthBench ProfessionalSource —59.8%Not comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)Source —73.4%Not comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source —90.1%Not comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source —49.4%Not comparable
SpatialBench VerifiedSource —72.5%Not comparable
SingleCellBenchSource —60.6%Not comparable
ProteinGym HardSource —47.7%Not comparable
Protein DesignSource —42.5%Not comparable
Organic chemistry V2Source —61.6%Not comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)Source —61.1%Not comparable
Protocols (understanding)Source —78.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —60.7%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —93.2%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —52.6%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —31.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —54.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —50.1%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 5Result
IMO 2026Source —42/42Not comparable
RiemannBench (no tools)Source —60.0%Not comparable
RiemannBench (tools)Source —79.0%Not comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)Source —90.8%Not comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)Source —91.3%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 5Result
GMMLUSource —92.5%Not comparable
MILUSource —92.1%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —89.8%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 5Result
Chartography (no tools)Source —29.6%Not comparable
Chartography (tools)Source —83.0%Not comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source —0.366Not comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source —0.821Not comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)Source —83.4%Not comparable
GDP.pdf (tools)Source —85.5%Not comparable
OfficeQASource —78.1%Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource —66.9%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —84.7%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 5Result
IFEvalSource 94.8%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 5?

Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 59.84. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 47.6% and 64.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 5?

Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 47.6. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 5?

Claude Opus 5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 90.4 versus 60.2. Agents-A1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 5?

Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 75.5. Inside this category, HLE w/ tools is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

InternScience Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 24, 2026