Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 5
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #38 (Supported); 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 and Claude Opus 5 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 44 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 64 to Claude Opus 5.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 44
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 64
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.5 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 5 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 63.43. 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 agentic, where it averages 90.8 against 62.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 30.8% to 64.7%. Claude Opus 4.5 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Opus 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.5 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.
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 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Δ | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.562.6 | Margin→ 28.2 | Claude Opus 590.8 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.564.4 | Margin→ 26.0 | Claude Opus 590.4 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.571.7 | Margin→ 17.8 | Claude Opus 589.5 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.558.1 | Margin→ 6.6 | Claude Opus 564.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.569.9 | Margin← 3.0 | Claude Opus 566.9 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.557.5 | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 5Not measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.585.7 | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 5Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.569.5 | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 5Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 30.8%B 64.7%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 33.9HLE: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 30.8%; Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 57.1%B 79.2%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 22.1SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 57.1%; Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 80.9%B 96%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 15.1SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 80.9%; Claude Opus 5 scored 96%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5200K | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins39 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.6% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.2% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 23.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 26.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 42.3% | 85.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MCP-TasksSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 76.4% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 50.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.23% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 32.3% | — | 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-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 |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.9% | 96% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 84.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.1% | 79.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 77.5% | 89.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| NL2RepoSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 55.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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 |
ReasoningClaude Opus 5 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LongBench v2Source | 64.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AI-NeedleSource | 74% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-LCRSource | 65.3% | 70.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| CritPtSource | 0.3% | 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 |
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins27 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 96.6% | — | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.8% | 64.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 34.7% | 60.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.0% | 93.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.9% | 52.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.9% | 31.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.7% | 54.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.4% | 50.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 88.9% | — | 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 |
Math12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 92.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 85.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 84.0% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 20.690% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | — | Not comparable |
| IMO 2026Source | — | 42/42 | Not 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 |
Multilingual5 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.5 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 68.5% | — | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 67.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 71.2% | 84.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1277 | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 63.43. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 30.8% and 64.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 58.1. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 71.7. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 90.4 versus 64.4. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 62.6. Inside this category, MCP Atlas is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.9 versus 66.9. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.