Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 56 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 2 to Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 56
- Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.5 makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window; Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct is the better fit if instruction following is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 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 4.5 and Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct 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 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct.
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 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.558.1 | Margin← 17.2 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct40.9 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.569.5 | Margin→ 6.3 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct75.8 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.562.6 | MarginNo overlap | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.571.7 | MarginNo overlap | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.564.4 | MarginNo overlap | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.557.5 | MarginNo overlap | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.585.7 | MarginNo overlap | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.569.9 | MarginNo overlap | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87%B 40.9%Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 46.1GPQA: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 87%; Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct scored 40.9%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
IFEval
Inst. FollowingA 90.9%B 75.8%Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 15.1IFEval: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 90.9%; Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct scored 75.8%. Claude Opus 4.5 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 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5200K | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct128K | Claude Opus 4.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 44.2% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87% | 40.9% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 96.6% | 78.1% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| C-EvalSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 34.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 12.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 40.9% | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct | 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 |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1277 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct?
Claude Opus 4.5 and Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct 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, Claude Opus 4.5 or Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 58.1 versus 40.9. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Claude Opus 4.5 or Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct?
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 75.8 versus 69.5. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.