Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Interfaze Beta
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Interfaze Beta unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Interfaze Beta share 0 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 79 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 10 to Interfaze Beta.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 79
- Interfaze Beta only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 5 makes more sense if its workflow fits your team better; Interfaze Beta is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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 5 and Interfaze Beta 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 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 input / $3.50 output per 1M tokens for Interfaze Beta. That is roughly 7.1x on output cost alone.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Interfaze Beta | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Interfaze Beta$1.5 input / $3.5 output | Interfaze Beta has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Interfaze BetaNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Interfaze BetaNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Interfaze Beta1M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Interfaze Beta | 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 | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
Coding13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Interfaze Beta | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Spider 2.0-LiteSource | — | 52.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeInterfaze Beta wins24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Interfaze Beta | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 90.9% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
MultimodalInterfaze Beta wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Interfaze Beta | 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 |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| olmOCRSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
| VoxPopuli WERSource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 71.1% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Interfaze Beta | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOB Value AccSource | — | 79.5% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Interfaze Beta?
Claude Opus 5 and Interfaze Beta 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 knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Interfaze Beta?
Interfaze Beta has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.9 versus 64.7. Claude Opus 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Interfaze Beta?
Interfaze Beta has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.1 versus 66.9. Claude Opus 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.