Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Hy3 Preview
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Hy3 Preview #163 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Hy3 Preview share 15 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 64 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 7 to Hy3 Preview.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 64
- Hy3 Preview only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Hy3 Preview only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 3 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 42.67. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 90.8 against 54.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 64.7% to 25.5%.
Claude Opus 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Hy3 Preview. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone.
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 | Claude Opus 5 | Δ | Hy3 Preview |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 36.4 | Hy3 Preview54.4 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 31.7 | Hy3 Preview57.8 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin← 30.9 | Hy3 Preview33.8 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | Hy3 PreviewNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | MarginNo overlap | Hy3 PreviewNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Hy3 Preview63.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 64.7%B 25.5%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 39.2HLE: Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%; Hy3 Preview scored 25.5%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 96%B 74.4%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 21.6SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 5 scored 96%; Hy3 Preview scored 74.4%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Hy3 Preview | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Hy3 Preview$0 input / $0 output | Hy3 Preview has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Hy3 PreviewNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Hy3 PreviewNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Hy3 Preview256K | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins26 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Hy3 Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | 1215 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 30.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 35.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 54.4% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 36.91% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Hy3 Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | 74.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 58.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 47.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 54.4% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 41.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Hy3 Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | 25.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | 41.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 89.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 31.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | -18.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 31.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 73.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 87.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.2% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Hy3 Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Hy3 Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBenchSource | — | 63.1% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Hy3 Preview?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 42.67. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 64.7% and 25.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Hy3 Preview?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 33.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Hy3 Preview?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 57.8. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Hy3 Preview?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 54.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.