Model comparison
Celeris-1 vs Claude Opus 5
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Celeris-1 unranked (Not scored); Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Celeris-1 and Claude Opus 5 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Celeris-1; 79 to Claude Opus 5.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Celeris-1 only
- 1
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 79
- 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 5 is the better fit if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 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 5 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 5 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 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Celeris-1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Claude Opus 5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Celeris-1$2 input / $6 output | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Celeris-1 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Celeris-1Not available | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Celeris-1Not available | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Celeris-18K | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | — | 43.3% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 90.8% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 64.7% | 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 | — | 1861 | Not 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 turns | Not 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 | — | 1720 | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeCeleris-1 wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 75.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | — | 29.6% | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | — | 83.0% | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | — | 0.366 | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | — | 0.821 | Not 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 |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Celeris-1 or Claude Opus 5?
Celeris-1 and Claude Opus 5 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 5?
Celeris-1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.9 versus 64.7. Claude Opus 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.