Model comparison
Celeris-1 vs Claude Opus 4.6
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Celeris-1 unranked (Not scored); Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Celeris-1 and Claude Opus 4.6 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Celeris-1; 45 to Claude Opus 4.6.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Celeris-1 only
- 0
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 45
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Celeris-1 makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Claude Opus 4.6 is the better fit if you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Celeris-1 and Claude Opus 4.6 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens for Celeris-1. That is roughly 4.2x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 8K for Celeris-1.
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 | Celeris-1 | Δ | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Celeris-175.9 | Margin← 6.8 | Claude Opus 4.669.1 |
| Agentic | Celeris-1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.673.0 |
| Coding | Celeris-1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.668.1 |
| Math | Celeris-1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.636.3 |
| Multimodal | Celeris-1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.677.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 75.9%B 82%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 6.1MMLU-Pro: Celeris-1 scored 75.9%; Claude Opus 4.6 scored 82%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Celeris-1$2 input / $6 output | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | Celeris-1 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Celeris-1Not available | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Celeris-1Not available | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Celeris-18K | Claude Opus 4.61M | Claude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.4% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 72.7% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 84.8% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 73.7% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 66.6% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 61.85% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 36.7% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | — | 75.6% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 65.3% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 57.57% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 45.7% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeCeleris-1 wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 75.9% | 82% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 91.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 89.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 95% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 53% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 40% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 52.1% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 37.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 18.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 3.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 45.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 76.0% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 44.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Celeris-1 or Claude Opus 4.6?
Celeris-1 and Claude Opus 4.6 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Celeris-1 or Claude Opus 4.6?
Celeris-1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.9 versus 69.1. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.