Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Laguna S 2.1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
No comparison
Laguna S 2.1
Poolside
N/A
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); Laguna S 2.1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Laguna S 2.1 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 44 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 4 to Laguna S 2.1.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude Opus 4.6 only
44
Laguna S 2.1 only
4
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.6 makes more sense if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Laguna S 2.1 is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 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 4.6 and Laguna S 2.1 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 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.20 output per 1M tokens for Laguna S 2.1. That is roughly 125.0x on output cost alone. Laguna S 2.1 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.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.6 and Laguna S 2.1
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔLaguna S 2.1
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin← 8.7Laguna S 2.159.4
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0Margin← 2.8Laguna S 2.170.2
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · Laguna S 2.1

  1. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 53.4%B 59.4%
    Winner: Laguna S 2.1Δ 6
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%; Laguna S 2.1 scored 59.4%. Laguna S 2.1 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.4%B 70.2%
    Winner: Laguna S 2.1Δ 4.8
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; Laguna S 2.1 scored 70.2%. Laguna S 2.1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.6Laguna S 2.1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputLaguna S 2.1$0.1 input / $0.2 outputLaguna S 2.1 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MLaguna S 2.11MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Laguna S 2.1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%70.2%Laguna S 2.1 leads
BrowseCompSource 83.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 66.6%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 61.85%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.7%—Not comparable
Toolathlon-VerifiedSource —49.7%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Laguna S 2.1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%59.4%Laguna S 2.1 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%—Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.2%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —78.5%Not comparable
deepSweSource —40.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Laguna S 2.1Result
AA-LCRSource 58.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 2.8%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Laguna S 2.1Result
GPQASource 91.3%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 89.2%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%—Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 40%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 14.8%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 52.1%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.8%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 18.6%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Laguna S 2.1Result
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Laguna S 2.1Result
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
ERQASource 51.6%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 64.8%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 72.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1325—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Laguna S 2.1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

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

Claude Opus 4.6 and Laguna S 2.1 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 coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Laguna S 2.1?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.1 versus 59.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 versus 70.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 2026

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.