Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Opus 4.5

Anthropic

60.25/100

Supported · Public rank #74

90% interval 50.9–69.6

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Cosmos3-Edge

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

NVIDIA logo
Model B
Cosmos3-Edge

NVIDIA

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Cosmos3-Edge

    Cosmos3-Edge has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Cosmos3-Edge is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Cosmos3-Edge is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Cosmos3-Edge has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
Claude Opus 4.5 only
45
Cosmos3-Edge only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
44.5
Estimated · #101/151
Cosmos3-Edge
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 15 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
55.1
Supported · #42/183
Cosmos3-Edge
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
72.1
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Cosmos3-Edge
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
55.4
Estimated · #60/181
Cosmos3-Edge
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
58.3
#6/7
Cosmos3-Edge
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 4 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
82.9
#2/12
Cosmos3-Edge
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
23.4
#46/48
Cosmos3-Edge
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
39.5
#103/120
Cosmos3-Edge
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5
$0.0175
Fits in one request
Cosmos3-Edge
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Cosmos3-Edge has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5
$0.325
Fits in one request
Cosmos3-Edge
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Cosmos3-Edge has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5
$1.35
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Cosmos3-Edge
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Cosmos3-Edge has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Opus 4.5

200K

Cosmos3-Edge

256K

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Cosmos3-Edge

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 4.5

Not published

Cosmos3-Edge

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Cosmos3-Edge

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Cosmos3-Edge

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Cosmos3-Edge

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Cosmos3-Edge

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Cosmos3-Edge

Open Weight

License

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Cosmos3-Edge

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Opus 4.5

2025-11-01

Cosmos3-Edge

2026-07-20

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Cosmos3-Edge has the larger documented window (256K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence45 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.559.3%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.566.3%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld

    Claude Opus 4.566.3%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Opus 4.559.6%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Claude Opus 4.552.3%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Claude Opus 4.570.2%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    Claude Opus 4.523.3%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    Claude Opus 4.526.4%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Claude Opus 4.543.5%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 4.542.3%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    Claude Opus 4.571.8%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Claude Opus 4.576.4%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Opus 4.550.6%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Claude Opus 4.564.23%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude Opus 4.532.3%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.580.9%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Claude Opus 4.584.8%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.557.1%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Opus 4.577.5%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Claude Opus 4.543.2%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    Claude Opus 4.564.4%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • AI-Needle

    Claude Opus 4.574%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 4.587%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Claude Opus 4.570.6%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.589.5%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    Claude Opus 4.596.6%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    Claude Opus 4.592.2%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 4.530.8%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Claude Opus 4.595.1%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Claude Opus 4.592.9%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Claude Opus 4.593.3%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Claude Opus 4.585.3%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Claude Opus 4.584.0%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Opus 4.520.690%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Opus 4.54.167%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Claude Opus 4.585.7%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    Claude Opus 4.556.7%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.570.6%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Claude Opus 4.574.3%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 4.568.5%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Claude Opus 4.584.4%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Claude Opus 4.545.7%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Claude Opus 4.567.0%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Claude Opus 4.590.9%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

  • IFBench

    Claude Opus 4.558%
    Source
    Cosmos3-Edge—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Cosmos3-Edge?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Cosmos3-Edge?

Cosmos3-Edge is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Cosmos3-Edge?

Cosmos3-Edge is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or Cosmos3-Edge?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Cosmos3-Edge?

Cosmos3-Edge has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Cosmos3-Edge

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.