Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Data as of October 20, 2026 · How the score is built

Superseded.Anthropic has newer models in this line:Claude Opus 5.5
SupersededProprietaryReasoning

Released Jul 24, 20261M contextClaude Opus 5 System Card

Claude Opus 5

Decision readingClaude Opus 5 scores 80.1 out of 100 and ranks #8 of 227. This profile shows 80 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #2. API pricing is $5 input and $25 output per million tokens, with cached input at $0.5.

Released Jul 24, 2026 — see all recent releases

Decision snapshot

Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.

Capability

80.1/100

field median 49.8#8 of 227 ranked models

Public

#8of 227

Verified #8 of 87

Price

$5input / $25 output

input median $0.72cached $0.50 · batch + cache $0.25 · blended $15

Speed

62tok/s

field median 93.5 tok/sFirst token 59.73 s

Context

1Mtokens

field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately

Strongest published evidence

Multimodal & Grounded ranks #2. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.

Validate before choosing

80 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Coding is its lowest eligible category at #9.

Source-linked · 80 displayable benchmark rows

Category score record

Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank #4 of 131Percentile 98thWeight 22%21 benchmarksVerified
78.4
CodingRank #9 of 152Percentile 95thWeight 20%18 benchmarksVerified
70.8
ReasoningRank #8 of 27Percentile 73rdWeight 17%3 benchmarksVerified
81.0
MultimodalRank #2 of 55Percentile 98thWeight 12%8 benchmarksVerified
92.2
KnowledgeRank #7 of 187Percentile 97thWeight 12%19 benchmarksVerified
82.3
MultilingualWeight 7%3 benchmarksVerified
Score pending
Inst. FollowingWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified
Score pending
MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%7 benchmarksVerified
91.6

80 of 726 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100

Coverage details

How much of this is verified

Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.

  1. Agentic21/21 verified
  2. Coding18/18 verified
  3. Reasoning3/3 verified
  4. Multimodal8/8 verified
  5. Knowledge19/19 verified
  6. Multilingual3/3 verified
  7. Inst. Following1/1 verified
  8. Math7/7 verified
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

Capability shape

Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.

Claude Opus 5 category percentile values

  • Agentic98th percentile
  • Coding95th percentile
  • Reasoning73rd percentile
  • Multimodal98th percentile
  • Knowledge97th percentile
  • MultilingualNot eligible
  • Instruction followingNot eligible
  • MathNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#4/131
  2. Coding#9/152
  3. Reasoning#8/27
  4. Multimodal#2/55
  5. Knowledge#7/187
  6. MultilingualNot ranked
  7. Inst. FollowingNot ranked
  8. MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

Benchmark ledger

Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.

Coding18 rows
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
SWE-bench ProScore79.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9%

Gap10.7 behindWeight26% ref. weight
DeepSWEScore68.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Wonder Full · 79.0%

Gap10.2 behindWeight15% ref. weight
CursorBench 3.2Score70.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 73.4%

Gap3.4 behindWeight10% ref. weight
FrontierSWE v2Score52.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 65.5%

Gap13.5 behindWeight8% ref. weight
LiveCodeBench (Vals)LiveCodeBench, Vals AI runScore89.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 90.5%

Gap1.5 behindWeight8% ref. weight
SWE MultilingualScore89.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9%

Gap4.4 behindWeight5% ref. weight
FrontierCode 1.1 MainScore53.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 54.4%

Gap1 behindWeight4% ref. weight
VulcanBench v3Score87.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Grok 4.5 · 89.9%

Gap2.9 behindWeight3% ref. weight
Bug Hunt BenchScore27.0 fixesVersus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 51.3 fixes

Gap24.3 behindWeightDisplay only
SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark VerifiedScore96%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
SWE MultimodalSWE-bench MultimodalScore59.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 61.4%

Gap2 behindWeightDisplay only
FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedScore63.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 64.5%

Gap0.9 behindWeightDisplay only
ProgramBench (episode 1)ProgramBench hidden-test pass rate after episode 1Score83.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 83.0%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
ProgramBenchProgramBench: Can Language Models Rebuild Programs From Scratch?Score93.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 93.0%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
VulcanBench CII v1VulcanBench Coding Intelligence Index v1Score96.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96.4%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
SWE-bench (Vals)SWE-bench, Vals AI runScore97.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 97.0%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
CursorBench 4.0Score46.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 57.8%

Gap11.2 behindWeightDisplay only
PostTrainBench v1.1Score35.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 49.3%

Gap14.3 behindWeightDisplay only
Agentic21 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
BrowseCompScore90.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5%

Gap1.7 behindWeight8% ref. weight
AutomationBenchScore26.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: MiniMax M3.1 Flash · 62.2%

Gap36.2 behindWeight6% ref. weight
MCP AtlasScore85.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark Open · 89.2%

Gap3.4 behindWeight4% ref. weight
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI runScore84.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3%

Gap2.7 behindWeight4% ref. weight
Terminal-Bench 3.0Score42.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 42.7%

GapBest verifiedWeight3% ref. weight
HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with toolsScore64.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7%

Gap3 behindWeight3% ref. weight
Toolathlon-VerifiedScore80.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 80.6%

GapBest verifiedWeight3% ref. weight
DeepSearchQAScore95.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 96.0%

Gap1 behindWeight2% ref. weight
DRACOData Research and Analysis with Complex OperationsScore88.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 88.6%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Multi-Agent BrowseComp — 10-agent team prerelease configurationScore93.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 93.6%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
OSWorld 2.0Score70.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 72.6%

Gap2 behindWeightDisplay only
MCP-Atlas claim coverageMCP-Atlas mean claim coverageScore89.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 89.1%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Legal Agent Benchmark all-pass rate — Anthropic harnessScore23.58%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 23.58%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Legal Agent Benchmark mean criterion-pass rate — Anthropic harnessScore93.74%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 93.74%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Legal Agent Benchmark all-pass rate — Harvey held-out setScore11.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 11.7%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Legal Agent Benchmark mean criterion-pass rate — Harvey held-out setScore94.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 94.1%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Score87.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 87.0%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Toolathlon Verified Pass³Toolathlon Verified Pass cubedScore73.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 73.1%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsToolathlon Verified average assistant turnsScore23.5 turnsVersus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 31.6 turns

Gap8.1 behindWeightDisplay only
ApprenticeBenchApprenticeBench: end-to-end computer use, continual learning, and long-horizon agency on a real accounts-payable jobScore36%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 72%

Gap36 behindWeightDisplay only
MazeBenchMazeBench: visual spatial reasoning in a 3D open worldScore12%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 23%

Gap11 behindWeightDisplay only
Reasoning3 rows
Reasoning benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2Score90.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 95%

Gap4.6 behindWeightWeighted 25%
ARC-AGI-3Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v3Score30.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 62.7%

Gap32.6 behindWeightWeighted 15%
ARC-AGI-1ARC-AGI-1 Semi-Private EvaluationScore97.50%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5 · 98.50%

Gap1 behindWeightDisplay only
Multimodal8 rows
Multimodal benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
OfficeQA ProScore66.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7%

Gap0.8 behindWeightWeighted 25%
Chartography (no tools)Chartography without toolsScore29.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 71.6%

Gap42 behindWeightDisplay only
Chartography (tools)Chartography with image and code toolsScore83.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 90.2%

Gap7.2 behindWeightDisplay only
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)BenchCAD Vision2Code voxel IoU without toolsScore0.366Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 0.747

Gap0.4 behindWeightDisplay only
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)BenchCAD Vision2Code voxel IoU with toolsScore0.821Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 0.963

Gap0.1 behindWeightDisplay only
GDP.pdf (no tools)GDP.pdf mean criteria pass rate without toolsScore83.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 83.4%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
GDP.pdf (tools)GDP.pdf mean criteria pass rate with toolsScore85.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 85.5%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
OfficeQAScore78.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 78.9%

Gap0.8 behindWeightDisplay only
Knowledge19 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HLEHumanity's Last ExamScore64.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65%

Gap0.3 behindWeight44% ref. weight
HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without toolsScore56.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 64.4%

Gap8.1 behindWeight7% ref. weight
MMLU-Pro (Vals)MMLU-Pro, Vals AI runScore91.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 92.4%

Gap0.8 behindWeight6% ref. weight
GPQA Diamond (Vals)GPQA Diamond, Vals AI runScore93.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 3.1 Pro · 95.5%

Gap2.1 behindWeight2% ref. weight
HLE-VerifiedScore54.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 3.8 Flash · 54.9%

Gap0.5 behindWeightDisplay only
LABBench2LABBench2: An Improved Benchmark for AI Systems Performing Biology ResearchScore84.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 88.8%

Gap4.6 behindWeightDisplay only
HealthBench (raw)HealthBench raw scoreScore67.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 69.4%

Gap2.3 behindWeightDisplay only
HealthBench (length-adjusted)HealthBench length-adjusted scoreScore57.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 65.4%

Gap7.6 behindWeightDisplay only
HealthBench ProfessionalScore59.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 69.2%

Gap9.4 behindWeightDisplay only
HealthBench Professional (raw)HealthBench Professional raw scoreScore73.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 77.1%

Gap3.7 behindWeightDisplay only
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)BioMysteryBench Human SolvableScore90.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 90.1%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)BioMysteryBench Human DifficultScore49.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 3.8 Flash · 56.5%

Gap7.1 behindWeightDisplay only
SpatialBench VerifiedLatchBio SpatialBench VerifiedScore72.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 72.5%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
SingleCellBenchLatchBio SingleCellBenchScore60.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 61.2%

Gap0.6 behindWeightDisplay only
ProteinGym HardScore47.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 47.7%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Protein DesignAnthropic Protein Design evaluationScore42.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 60.2%

Gap17.7 behindWeightDisplay only
Organic chemistry V2Anthropic Organic Chemistry V2 evaluationScore61.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 61.6%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Protocols (troubleshooting)Molecular Biology Protocols TroubleshootingScore61.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 73.7%

Gap12.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Protocols (understanding)Benchling Molecular Biology Protocols UnderstandingScore78.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 78.4%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Multilingual3 rows
Multilingual benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
GMMLUGlobal MMLUScore92.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 94.3%

Gap1.8 behindWeightDisplay only
MILUMulti-task Indic Language Understanding BenchmarkScore92.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.1%

Gap1 behindWeightDisplay only
INCLUDEScore89.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 89.8%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Inst. Following1 row
Inst. Following benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)Gray Swan Indirect Prompt Injection, attack success at 15 attemptsScore4.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 0.7%

Gap3.9 behindWeightDisplay only
Math7 rows
Math benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3Score85.614%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 93.684%

Gap8.1 behindWeightWeighted 30%
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)FrontierMath v2 Tier 4Score73.171%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6.1 Sol · 100.000%

Gap26.8 behindWeightWeighted 10%
IMO 2026International Mathematical Olympiad 2026Score42/42Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 42/42

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
RiemannBench (no tools)RiemannBench without toolsScore60.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 60.0%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
RiemannBench (tools)RiemannBench with toolsScore79.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 79.0%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)ArXivMath June 2026 without toolsScore90.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 90.8%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)ArXivMath June 2026 with toolsScore91.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 91.3%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only

What it costs to get this score

Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.

Current modelExplore all models

Claude Opus 5 · 80.1 score · $15 blended per million tokens

The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.

405060708090100$0.10$0.50$1$5$10$25$50$100↘ frontierClaude Opus 5

Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. February 2026

    Claude Opus 4.6

    Score 62.3 · $5 / $25

  2. Apr 16, 2026

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

    Score 68.7 · $5 / $25

  3. May 28, 2026

    Claude Opus 4.8

    Score 70.0 · $5 / $25

  4. Jul 24, 2026 · you are here

    Claude Opus 5

    Score 80.1 · $5 / $25

  5. Sep 22, 2026

    Claude Opus 5.5

    Score 86.7 · $4 / $20

Base entry

Spec sheet

Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.

API model ID
claude-opus-5Anthropic model overview
Context window
1MAnthropic model overview
Maximum output
Not sourced yet
Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Input modalities
text, imageAnthropic model overview
Output modalities
textAnthropic model overview
Parameters
Not disclosed by the provider
Availability
Claude APIAnthropic model overview
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
API capabilities
Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
Prompt caching
Published at $0.50 per million cached input tokensClaude API pricing
Self-host
Weights are not published
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

How to read this profile

The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.

Claude Opus 5 ranks #8 of 227 on the public leaderboard with a score of 80.11/100. Its source-verified position is #8 of 87.

Claude Opus 5 is a proprietary model with a 1M context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.

Available on all Claude platforms and through the Claude API as claude-opus-5. It is the default model on Claude Max and the strongest model offered on Claude Pro. Anthropic lists Opus 5 at $5 input / $25 output per million tokens, with Fast mode running around 2.5× the default speed at twice the base price.

Official exact-value snapshot from Anthropic's July 24, 2026 Claude Opus 5 launch post and system card, supplemented by Cursor's live CursorBench 3.2 Max row, Anthropic's Fable 5.1 system card for FrontierSWE v2, Google's Gemini 3.8 comparison for HLE-Verified and LABBench2, and Bug Hunt Bench's max-effort run. We map the highest published effort setting into the canonical row and use the verified high-effort ARC-AGI-3 result because no max-effort score was available at launch. The four added benchmark rows remain display-only.

Its explicit predecessor is Claude Opus 4.8. 80 of 726 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #2, while its lowest eligible position is Coding at #9. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.

Last updated October 20, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Deployment options

Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.

Where to run Claude Opus 5 by API

2 hosts publish a per-token price for it. DeepInfra has the lowest output rate, $25.00 per million tokens. Prices read from each host’s own pages on October 20, 2026.

Inference hosts for Claude Opus 5 with input, output and cached-input prices per million tokens.
HostInput /1MOutput /1MCached /1MContext
DeepInfra$5.00$25.00—1M
OpenRouter$5.00$25.00$0.501M
Compare inference hosts

Questions

How does Claude Opus 5 perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5 ranks #8 out of 227 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 80.11/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 80 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.

Is Claude Opus 5 good for knowledge and understanding?

Claude Opus 5 ranks #7 out of 187 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 82.3/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Claude Opus 5 good for coding and programming?

Claude Opus 5 ranks #9 out of 152 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 70.8/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Claude Opus 5 good for mathematics?

Claude Opus 5 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Claude Opus 5 good for reasoning and logic?

Claude Opus 5 ranks #8 out of 27 eligible models for reasoning and logic, with a public category score of 81/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Claude Opus 5 good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Claude Opus 5 ranks #4 out of 131 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 78.4/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Claude Opus 5 good for multimodal and grounded tasks?

Claude Opus 5 ranks #2 out of 55 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 92.2/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Claude Opus 5 good for instruction following?

Claude Opus 5 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for instruction following, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Claude Opus 5 good for multilingual tasks?

Claude Opus 5 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for multilingual tasks, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Does Claude Opus 5 have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. Claude Opus 5 currently has 99 source-displayable rows. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.

What is the context window size of Claude Opus 5?

Claude Opus 5 has a documented context window of 1M. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.

Watch Claude Opus 5 in the weekly brief

Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,600+ readers.

Compare Claude Opus 5 with every tracked model971 comparisons