Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs Claude Opus 5

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 10 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

56.43/100
Margin
29.4pts
winning →
Anthropic
85.88/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #76 (Estimated); Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Claude Opus 5 share 10 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 69 to Claude Opus 5.

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
10
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
6
Claude Opus 5 only
69
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Claude Opus 5 is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 10 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

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 Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Claude Opus 5
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingΔClaude Opus 5
AgenticClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 590.8
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 589.5
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 590.4
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 564.7
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 566.9

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingClaude Opus 5Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableClaude Opus 5$5 input / $25 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableClaude Opus 5Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableClaude Opus 5Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5 Thinking200KClaude Opus 5Not availableA complete context comparison is not available.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingClaude Opus 5Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 89.5%Not comparable
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 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
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingClaude Opus 5Result
Vibe Code BenchSource 20.63%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 49.5%55.7%Claude Opus 5 leads
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
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingClaude Opus 5Result
AA-LCRSource 74.0%70.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
CritPtSource 4.6%29.1%Claude Opus 5 leads
ARC-AGI-1Source 97.50%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 90.4%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-3Source 30.2%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingClaude Opus 5Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.8%60.7%Claude Opus 5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.6%93.2%Claude Opus 5 leads
AA-HLESource 28.4%52.6%Claude Opus 5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 13.3%31.3%Claude Opus 5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.7%54.2%Claude Opus 5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 59.8%50.1%Claude Opus 5 leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 89.5%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
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingClaude 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
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingClaude Opus 5Result
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 91.3%Not comparable
GMMLUSource 92.5%Not comparable
MILUSource 92.1%Not comparable
INCLUDESource 89.8%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingClaude Opus 5Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.0%84.7%Claude Opus 5 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1277Not comparable
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
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingClaude Opus 5Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Claude Opus 5 on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Claude Opus 5 today?

Claude Opus 5: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 24, 2026