Side-by-side benchmark comparison across knowledge, coding, math, and reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 90 to 28. 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 coding, where it averages 82 against 54.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HumanEval, 91 to 54.8.
Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 64K for Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1.
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.6
85.7
Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1
71.4
Claude Opus 4.6
82
Mixtral 8x22B Instruct v0.1
54.8
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead overall, 90 to 28. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HumanEval, where the scores are 91 and 54.8.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 71.4. Inside this category, MMLU is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 82 versus 54.8. Inside this category, HumanEval 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.