Side-by-side benchmark comparison across knowledge, coding, math, and reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 90 to 31. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 85.7 against 71.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 97 to 71.2.
Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.05 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5 nano. That is roughly 187.5x on output cost alone. GPT-5 nano is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.6 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. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5 nano.
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Claude Opus 4.6
85.7
GPT-5 nano
71.2
Claude Opus 4.6
97.3
GPT-5 nano
85.2
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead overall, 90 to 31. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 97 and 71.2.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 71.2. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.3 versus 85.2. Inside this category, AIME 2025 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.