Multimodal
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.6
- 77.3
- Interfaze Beta
- 71.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Interfaze Beta
Updated August 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
3 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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Interfaze Beta
Interfaze Beta has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Interfaze Beta
Interfaze Beta has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Interfaze Beta has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Interfaze Beta
Interfaze Beta has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
30 Claude Opus 4.6 only
3 Shared
6 Interfaze Beta only
- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 30
- Interfaze Beta only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
1 category uses 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.
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.6
- 69.1
- Interfaze Beta
- 89.9
- Weighted basis
- 4 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- 73.0
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- 68.1
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- Not measured
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- 36.3
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- Not measured
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- Not measured
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.6 | Interfaze Beta | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 77.3 | 71.1 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Knowledge | 69.1 | 89.9 | Directional only4 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 73.0 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 68.1 | Not measured | Not comparable3 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 36.3 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 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.
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.6: 77.3%Interfaze Beta: 71.1%Normalized gap 6.2Claude Opus 4.6 source Interfaze Beta sourceGPQA
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.6: 91.3%Interfaze Beta: 89.9%Normalized gap 1.4Claude Opus 4.6 source Interfaze Beta 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 4.6
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Interfaze Beta
- $0.00325
- Fits in one request
Interfaze Beta has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.6
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Interfaze Beta
- $0.0855
- Fits in one request
Interfaze Beta has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.6
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Interfaze Beta
- $0.365
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Interfaze Beta has the lower modeled cost
Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Interfaze Beta has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.6Interfaze Beta
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.6
1M
Interfaze Beta
1M
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Interfaze Beta
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 4.6
Not published
Interfaze Beta
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Interfaze Beta
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Interfaze Beta
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Interfaze Beta
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.6
Non-Reasoning
Interfaze Beta
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.6
Proprietary
Interfaze Beta
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.6
Proprietary
Interfaze Beta
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.6
2026-02-01
Interfaze Beta
2026-05-11
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
- Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.0855. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.365.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
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 evidence39 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.665.4%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.683.7%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.672.7%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.670.4%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 4.673.7%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.666.6%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.661.85%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 4.619.9%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.636.7%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.680.8%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified*
Claude Opus 4.675.6%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Claude Opus 4.670.7%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.653.4%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude Opus 4.665.3%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Opus 4.684.1%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Opus 4.657.57%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 4.626.9%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
Spider 2.0-Lite
Claude Opus 4.6—Interfaze Beta52.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.691.3%SourceInterfaze Beta89.9%SourceClaude Opus 4.6 leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.689.2%SourceInterfaze Beta89.9%SourceInterfaze Beta leads this result
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.695%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.682%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Claude Opus 4.689.1%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.653%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.640%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Claude Opus 4.614.8%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Claude Opus 4.652.1%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
MMMLU
Claude Opus 4.6—Interfaze Beta90.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.677.3%SourceInterfaze Beta71.1%SourceClaude Opus 4.6 leads this result
ERQA
Claude Opus 4.651.6%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.683.1%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Opus 4.664.8%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude Opus 4.6—Interfaze Beta70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
olmOCR
Claude Opus 4.6—Interfaze Beta85.7%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Claude Opus 4.6—Interfaze Beta82.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
SOB Value Acc
Claude Opus 4.6—Interfaze Beta79.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Interfaze Beta?
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 4.6 or Interfaze Beta?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Interfaze Beta?
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 4.6 or Interfaze Beta?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.6 and $0.00325 on Interfaze Beta; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.0855; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.365. Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Interfaze Beta has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.6 or Interfaze Beta?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 10, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.6 vs Interfaze Beta
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.