Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.5
- 71.7
- dots3-note Preview
- 71.7
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Tie
Claude Opus 4.5 vs dots3-note Preview
Updated August 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
13 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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
dots3-note Preview
dots3-note Preview has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
No clear pick
The like-for-like category result is tied.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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. dots3-note Preview 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.
32 Claude Opus 4.5 only
13 Shared
18 dots3-note Preview only
- Shared results
- 13
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 32
- dots3-note Preview only
- 18
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Instruction following
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.5
- 69.5
- dots3-note Preview
- 85.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- dots3-note Preview leads
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.5
- 58.1
- dots3-note Preview
- 52.6
- Weighted basis
- 4 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.5
- 69.9
- dots3-note Preview
- 79.1
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.5
- 62.6
- dots3-note Preview
- 83.3
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.5
- 64.4
- dots3-note Preview
- 81.4
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.5
- 57.5
- dots3-note Preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 4 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.5
- 85.7
- dots3-note Preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.5 | dots3-note Preview | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 71.7 | 71.7 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Tie |
| Instruction following | 69.5 | 85.1 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | dots3-note Preview leads |
| Knowledge | 58.1 | 52.6 | Directional only4 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 69.9 | 79.1 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 62.6 | 83.3 | Not comparable2 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 64.4 | 81.4 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 57.5 | Not measured | Not comparable4 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | 85.7 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
IFBench
Instruction following
Claude Opus 4.5: 58%dots3-note Preview: 80.4%Normalized gap 22.4Claude Opus 4.5 source dots3-note Preview sourceHLE
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.5: 30.8%dots3-note Preview: 52.6%Normalized gap 21.8Claude Opus 4.5 source dots3-note Preview sourceMMMU-Pro
Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.5: 70.6%dots3-note Preview: 79.1%Normalized gap 8.5Claude Opus 4.5 source dots3-note Preview sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Opus 4.5: 57.1%dots3-note Preview: 61%Normalized gap 3.9Claude Opus 4.5 source dots3-note Preview sourceIFEval
Instruction following
Claude Opus 4.5: 90.9%dots3-note Preview: 93.9%Normalized gap 3.0Claude Opus 4.5 source dots3-note Preview source
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
- dots3-note Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
dots3-note Preview 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
- dots3-note Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
dots3-note Preview 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
- dots3-note Preview
- 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. dots3-note Preview 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.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.5dots3-note Preview
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.5
200K
dots3-note Preview
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
dots3-note Preview
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
dots3-note Preview
No comparable hosted API rate
dots3-note Preview model cardDocumented inputs
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
dots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
dots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
dots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.5
Non-Reasoning
dots3-note Preview
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.5
Proprietary
dots3-note Preview
Open Weight
License
Claude Opus 4.5
Proprietary
dots3-note Preview
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Opus 4.5
2025-11-01
dots3-note Preview
2026-08-14
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- dots3-note Preview has the larger documented window (512K).
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 evidence63 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.559.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.566.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
OSWorld
Claude Opus 4.566.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.559.6%Sourcedots3-note Preview73.4%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
QwenClawBench
Claude Opus 4.552.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Opus 4.570.2%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Opus 4.523.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Opus 4.526.4%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 4.543.5%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.542.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Claude Opus 4.571.8%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Opus 4.576.4%Sourcedots3-note Preview78.9%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.550.6%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.564.23%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.532.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview75.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview55.6%SourceNot directly comparable
skillsBench
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview52.8%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview30.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview83.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview52.6%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview92.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.580.9%Sourcedots3-note Preview78.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Opus 4.584.8%Sourcedots3-note Preview91.5%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.557.1%Sourcedots3-note Preview61%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.577.5%Sourcedots3-note Preview75.7%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 4.543.2%Sourcedots3-note Preview49.8%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
Codeforces
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview3056.0SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview75.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.587%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.570.6%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.589.5%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Opus 4.596.6%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Claude Opus 4.592.2%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.530.8%Sourcedots3-note Preview52.6%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
Math
AIME26
Claude Opus 4.595.1%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Opus 4.592.9%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Opus 4.593.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Opus 4.585.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Opus 4.584.0%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Opus 4.520.690%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.54.167%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview90.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.570.6%Sourcedots3-note Preview79.1%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
MathVision
Claude Opus 4.574.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview87.7%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.568.5%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Opus 4.584.4%Sourcedots3-note Preview86.8%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.545.7%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
V*
Claude Opus 4.567.0%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview72.5%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview19.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview83.1%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview60.7%SourceNot directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview53.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview50.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MMVU
Claude Opus 4.5—dots3-note Preview79.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or dots3-note Preview?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or dots3-note Preview?
The like-for-like coding row is tied on the current public evidence.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or dots3-note Preview?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or dots3-note Preview?
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 dots3-note Preview?
dots3-note Preview has the larger documented context window: 512K, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 14, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs dots3-note Preview
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.