Data as of October 20, 2026 · How the score is built
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 | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #4 of 131Percentile 98thWeight 22%21 benchmarksVerified | 78.4 | 21 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank #9 of 152Percentile 95thWeight 20%18 benchmarksVerified | 70.8 | 18 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningRank #8 of 27Percentile 73rdWeight 17%3 benchmarksVerified | 81.0 | 3 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultimodalRank #2 of 55Percentile 98thWeight 12%8 benchmarksVerified | 92.2 | 8 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| KnowledgeRank #7 of 187Percentile 97thWeight 12%19 benchmarksVerified | 82.3 | 19 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%3 benchmarksVerified | Score pending | 3 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | Score pending | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%7 benchmarksVerified | 91.6 | 7 benchmarks | Verified |
80 of 726 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow 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.
- Agentic21/21 verified
- Coding18/18 verified
- Reasoning3/3 verified
- Multimodal8/8 verified
- Knowledge19/19 verified
- Multilingual3/3 verified
- Inst. Following1/1 verified
- Math7/7 verified
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
- Agentic#4/131
- Coding#9/152
- Reasoning#8/27
- Multimodal#2/55
- Knowledge#7/187
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
- MathNot ranked
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
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Pro | Score79.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9% | Gap10.7 behind | Weight26% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| DeepSWE | Score68.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Wonder Full · 79.0% | Gap10.2 behind | Weight15% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| CursorBench 3.2 | Score70.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 73.4% | Gap3.4 behind | Weight10% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| FrontierSWE v2 | Score52.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 65.5% | Gap13.5 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals)LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run | Score89.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 90.5% | Gap1.5 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | |
| SWE Multilingual | Score89.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9% | Gap4.4 behind | Weight5% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| FrontierCode 1.1 Main | Score53.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 54.4% | Gap1 behind | Weight4% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| VulcanBench v3 | Score87.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Grok 4.5 · 89.9% | Gap2.9 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| Bug Hunt Bench | Score27.0 fixes | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 51.3 fixes | Gap24.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score96% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SWE MultimodalSWE-bench Multimodal | Score59.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 61.4% | Gap2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| FrontierCode 1.1 Extended | Score63.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 64.5% | Gap0.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)ProgramBench hidden-test pass rate after episode 1 | Score83.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 83.0% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ProgramBenchProgramBench: Can Language Models Rebuild Programs From Scratch? | Score93.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 93.0% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| VulcanBench CII v1VulcanBench Coding Intelligence Index v1 | Score96.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96.4% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| SWE-bench (Vals)SWE-bench, Vals AI run | Score97.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 97.0% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Verified |
| CursorBench 4.0 | Score46.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 57.8% | Gap11.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| PostTrainBench v1.1 | Score35.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 49.3% | Gap14.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Agentic21 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BrowseComp | Score90.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5% | Gap1.7 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| AutomationBench | Score26.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MiniMax M3.1 Flash · 62.2% | Gap36.2 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| MCP Atlas | Score85.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark Open · 89.2% | Gap3.4 behind | Weight4% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run | Score84.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3% | Gap2.7 behind | Weight4% ref. weight | |
| Terminal-Bench 3.0 | Score42.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 42.7% | GapBest verified | Weight3% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with tools | Score64.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7% | Gap3 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon-Verified | Score80.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 80.6% | GapBest verified | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| DeepSearchQA | Score95.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 96.0% | Gap1 behind | Weight2% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| DRACOData Research and Analysis with Complex Operations | Score88.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 88.6% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Multi-Agent BrowseComp — 10-agent team prerelease configuration | Score93.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 93.6% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| OSWorld 2.0 | Score70.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 72.6% | Gap2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageMCP-Atlas mean claim coverage | Score89.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 89.1% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Legal Agent Benchmark all-pass rate — Anthropic harness | Score23.58% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 23.58% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Legal Agent Benchmark mean criterion-pass rate — Anthropic harness | Score93.74% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 93.74% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Legal Agent Benchmark all-pass rate — Harvey held-out set | Score11.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 11.7% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Legal Agent Benchmark mean criterion-pass rate — Harvey held-out set | Score94.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 94.1% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3 | Score87.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 87.0% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Toolathlon Verified Pass cubed | Score73.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 73.1% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsToolathlon Verified average assistant turns | Score23.5 turns | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 31.6 turns | Gap8.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ApprenticeBenchApprenticeBench: end-to-end computer use, continual learning, and long-horizon agency on a real accounts-payable job | Score36% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 72% | Gap36 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| MazeBenchMazeBench: visual spatial reasoning in a 3D open world | Score12% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 23% | Gap11 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Reasoning3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2 | Score90.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 95% | Gap4.6 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Benchmark exact |
| ARC-AGI-3Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v3 | Score30.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 62.7% | Gap32.6 behind | WeightWeighted 15% | Benchmark exact |
| ARC-AGI-1ARC-AGI-1 Semi-Private Evaluation | Score97.50% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5 · 98.50% | Gap1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Multimodal8 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA Pro | Score66.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7% | Gap0.8 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| Chartography (no tools)Chartography without tools | Score29.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 71.6% | Gap42 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Chartography (tools)Chartography with image and code tools | Score83.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 90.2% | Gap7.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)BenchCAD Vision2Code voxel IoU without tools | Score0.366 | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 0.747 | Gap0.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)BenchCAD Vision2Code voxel IoU with tools | Score0.821 | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 0.963 | Gap0.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)GDP.pdf mean criteria pass rate without tools | Score83.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 83.4% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| GDP.pdf (tools)GDP.pdf mean criteria pass rate with tools | Score85.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 85.5% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| OfficeQA | Score78.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 78.9% | Gap0.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Knowledge19 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score64.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65% | Gap0.3 behind | Weight44% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without tools | Score56.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 64.4% | Gap8.1 behind | Weight7% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| MMLU-Pro (Vals)MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run | Score91.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 92.4% | Gap0.8 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | Verified |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals)GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run | Score93.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.1 Pro · 95.5% | Gap2.1 behind | Weight2% ref. weight | |
| HLE-Verified | Score54.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.8 Flash · 54.9% | Gap0.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LABBench2LABBench2: An Improved Benchmark for AI Systems Performing Biology Research | Score84.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 88.8% | Gap4.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HealthBench (raw)HealthBench raw score | Score67.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 69.4% | Gap2.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)HealthBench length-adjusted score | Score57.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 65.4% | Gap7.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HealthBench Professional | Score59.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 69.2% | Gap9.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)HealthBench Professional raw score | Score73.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 77.1% | Gap3.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)BioMysteryBench Human Solvable | Score90.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 90.1% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)BioMysteryBench Human Difficult | Score49.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.8 Flash · 56.5% | Gap7.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SpatialBench VerifiedLatchBio SpatialBench Verified | Score72.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 72.5% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SingleCellBenchLatchBio SingleCellBench | Score60.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 61.2% | Gap0.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ProteinGym Hard | Score47.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 47.7% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Protein DesignAnthropic Protein Design evaluation | Score42.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 60.2% | Gap17.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Organic chemistry V2Anthropic Organic Chemistry V2 evaluation | Score61.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 61.6% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Molecular Biology Protocols Troubleshooting | Score61.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 73.7% | Gap12.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Protocols (understanding)Benchling Molecular Biology Protocols Understanding | Score78.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 78.4% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Multilingual3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GMMLUGlobal MMLU | Score92.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 94.3% | Gap1.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| MILUMulti-task Indic Language Understanding Benchmark | Score92.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.1% | Gap1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| INCLUDE | Score89.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 89.8% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Inst. Following1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)Gray Swan Indirect Prompt Injection, attack success at 15 attempts | Score4.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 0.7% | Gap3.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Math7 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3 | Score85.614% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 93.684% | Gap8.1 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Benchmark exact |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)FrontierMath v2 Tier 4 | Score73.171% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6.1 Sol · 100.000% | Gap26.8 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Benchmark exact |
| IMO 2026International Mathematical Olympiad 2026 | Score42/42 | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 42/42 | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| RiemannBench (no tools)RiemannBench without tools | Score60.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 60.0% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| RiemannBench (tools)RiemannBench with tools | Score79.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 79.0% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)ArXivMath June 2026 without tools | Score90.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 90.8% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)ArXivMath June 2026 with tools | Score91.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 91.3% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
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.
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.
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.
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
- Lifecycle
- activeAnthropic model overview
- 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.
| Host | Input /1M | Output /1M | Cached /1M | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepInfra | $5.00 | $25.00 | — | 1M |
| OpenRouter | $5.00 | $25.00 | $0.50 | 1M |
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.