Model A

Anthropic

69.84/100

Supported · Public rank #24

90% interval 60.5–79.2

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Laguna S 2.1

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

Model B

Laguna S 2.1

Poolside

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

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.

2 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 X LinkedInSocial card CSV JSON

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
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 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
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 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.
Confidence: rate-fallback

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 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
Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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.

31 Claude Opus 4.6 only

2 Shared

4 Laguna S 2.1 only

Shared results: 2
Claude Opus 4.6 only: 31
Laguna S 2.1 only: 4
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.6: 54.5; Supported · #39/151
Laguna S 2.1: 48.2; Estimated · #77/151
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 2 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.6: 56.4; Supported · #40/183
Laguna S 2.1: 47.8; Estimated · #87/183
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 4 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 65.8; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Laguna S 2.1: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.7; Estimated · #33/181
Laguna S 2.1: Not ranked
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 0 public rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 58.6; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Laguna S 2.1: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: Not ranked
Laguna S 2.1: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 58.8; #28/48
Laguna S 2.1: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 52.3; #76/120
Laguna S 2.1: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Opus 4.6 and Laguna S 2.1
Category	Claude Opus 4.6	Laguna S 2.1	Basis	Reading
Agentic	54.5Supported · #39/151	48.2Estimated · #77/151	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 2 public rows	Directional only
Coding	56.4Supported · #40/183	47.8Estimated · #87/183	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 8 vs 4 public rows	Directional only
Reasoning	65.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Knowledge	61.7Estimated · #33/181	Not ranked	Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 0 public rows	Not comparable
Math	58.6Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	58.8#28/48	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	52.3#76/120	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	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.

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.

SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Opus 4.6: 53.4%Laguna S 2.1: 59.4%Normalized gap 6.0Claude Opus 4.6 source Laguna S 2.1 source
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.6: 65.4%Laguna S 2.1: 70.2%Normalized gap 4.8Claude Opus 4.6 source Laguna S 2.1 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
Laguna S 2.1: $0.0002; Fits in one request

Laguna S 2.1 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
Laguna S 2.1: $0.0056; Fits in one request

Laguna S 2.1 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
Laguna S 2.1: $0.006; Fits in one request

Laguna S 2.1 has the lower modeled cost

Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6Laguna S 2.1

Context window

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

Claude Opus 4.6

Laguna S 2.1

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Laguna S 2.1

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

Laguna S 2.1

$0.01 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Laguna S 2.1

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Laguna S 2.1

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Laguna S 2.1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.6

Non-Reasoning

Laguna S 2.1

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Laguna S 2.1

Open Weight

License

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Laguna S 2.1

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Opus 4.6

2026-02-01

Laguna S 2.1

2026-07-21

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 $0.0056. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.006.
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 evidence37 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.665.4%
Source
Laguna S 2.170.2%
Source
Laguna S 2.1 leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.683.7%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.672.7%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.670.4%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 4.673.7%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.666.6%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.661.85%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 4.619.9%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.636.7%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 4.6—
Laguna S 2.149.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.680.8%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified*
Claude Opus 4.675.6%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Claude Opus 4.670.7%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.653.4%
Source
Laguna S 2.159.4%
Source
Laguna S 2.1 leads this result
SWE-Rebench
Claude Opus 4.665.3%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Opus 4.684.1%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Opus 4.657.57%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 4.626.9%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.6—
Laguna S 2.170.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.6—
Laguna S 2.178.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Opus 4.6—
Laguna S 2.140.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
Claude Opus 4.691.3%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.689.2%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.695%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.682%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Claude Opus 4.689.1%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.653%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.640%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Claude Opus 4.614.8%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Claude Opus 4.652.1%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable

Math

AIME25 (Arcee)
Claude Opus 4.699.8%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Opus 4.640.700%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.622.900%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.677.3%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Opus 4.651.6%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.683.1%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Opus 4.664.8%
Source
Laguna S 2.1—
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Laguna S 2.1?

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 Laguna S 2.1?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 56.4 to 47.8. Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Laguna S 2.1?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 54.5 to 48.2. Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.6 or Laguna S 2.1?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.6 and $0.0002 on Laguna S 2.1; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.0056; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.006. Claude Opus 4.6 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 Laguna S 2.1?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.6 vs Laguna S 2.1

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Laguna S 2.1

Which one for your work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Math

Multimodal

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Laguna S 2.1?

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Laguna S 2.1?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Laguna S 2.1?

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.6 or Laguna S 2.1?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.6 or Laguna S 2.1?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Opus 4.6 vs Laguna S 2.1