Skip to main content
Radar

Every change to the models you run, with its source and its date. Releases, price changes, retirements, API changes, and incidents.Every change to the models you run, with its source.

Follow model changes
CurrentReleased Sep 22, 2026ProprietaryReasoning1M contextClaude Opus 5.5 system card

Claude Opus 5.5

Decision reading
Claude Opus 5.5 scores 81 out of 100 and ranks #4 of 236. This profile shows 48 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #1. API pricing is $4 input and $20 output per million tokens, with cached input at $0.2.

Released Sep 22, 2026 see all recent releases

Data as of September 22, 2026 · How the score is built

Check the published record for the model and serving route you use.

Check this model

Strongest published evidence

Agentic ranks #1. Particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.

Validate before choosing

48 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Independent runtime speed has not been measured.

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

81/100

field median 56.6

#4 of 236 ranked models

Price

$4input / $20 output

input median $0.97

cached $0.20 · batch + cache $0.10 · blended $12

Speed

Not measured

field median 91 tok/s

Time to first token not measured

Context

1Mtokens

field median 256,000

Maximum output length is tracked separately

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. Agentic11/11 verified
  2. Coding9/9 verified
  3. ReasoningNot measured
  4. Multimodal7/7 verified
  5. Knowledge17/17 verified
  6. Multilingual2/2 verified
  7. Inst. FollowingNot measured
  8. Math2/2 verified
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

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 #1 of 156Percentile 100thWeight 22%11 benchmarksVerified82.7
CodingRank #4 of 159Percentile 98thWeight 20%9 benchmarksVerified76.0
ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measuredNot measured
MultimodalRank #3 of 50Percentile 96thWeight 12%7 benchmarksVerified88.8
KnowledgeRank #3 of 187Percentile 99thWeight 12%17 benchmarksVerified81.5
MultilingualWeight 7%2 benchmarksVerifiedScore pending
Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measuredNot measured
MathWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerifiedScore pending

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.

Coding9 rows
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
SWE-bench ProScore89.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9%

GapBest verifiedWeightWeighted 25%
SWE MultilingualScore93.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9%

GapBest verifiedWeightWeighted 5%
FrontierCode 1.1 MainScore54.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 54.4%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
CursorBench 4.0Score57.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 57.8%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
SWE MultimodalSWE-bench MultimodalScore61.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 61.4%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
DeepSWEScore74.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark 1.3 · 75.4%

Gap1.2 behindWeightDisplay only
FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedScore63.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 64.5%

Gap0.9 behindWeightDisplay only
FrontierSWE v2Score62.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 65.5%

Gap3.2 behindWeightDisplay only
ProgramBenchProgramBench: Can Language Models Rebuild Programs From Scratch?Score91.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 93.0%

Gap1.8 behindWeightDisplay only
Agentic11 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
AutomationBenchScore40.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 54.8%

Gap14.8 behindWeightWeighted 10%
OSWorld 2.0Score48.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 72.6%

Gap23.9 behindWeightWeighted 10%
Terminal-Bench 4.0Score66.40%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 66.40%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Score58.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 64.6%

Gap5.9 behindWeightDisplay only
HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with toolsScore67.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Legal Agent Benchmark all-pass rate — Harvey held-out setScore8.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 11.7%

Gap3.4 behindWeightDisplay only
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Legal Agent Benchmark mean criterion-pass rate — Harvey held-out setScore91.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 94.1%

Gap2.9 behindWeightDisplay only
Toolathlon-VerifiedScore77.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 80.6%

Gap2.8 behindWeightDisplay only
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Score82.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 87.0%

Gap4.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Toolathlon Verified Pass³Toolathlon Verified Pass cubedScore72.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 73.1%

Gap0.9 behindWeightDisplay only
Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsToolathlon Verified average assistant turnsScore26.9 turnsVersus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 26.9 turns

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Multimodal7 rows
Multimodal benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
OfficeQA ProScore67.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7%

GapBest verifiedWeightWeighted 25%
Chartography (tools)Chartography with image and code toolsScore89.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.0%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Chartography (no tools)Chartography without toolsScore64.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 64.4%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)BenchCAD Vision2Code voxel IoU without toolsScore0.730Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 0.730

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)BenchCAD Vision2Code voxel IoU with toolsScore0.962Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 0.962

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Biomedical image analysisAnthropic biomedical-image-analysis evaluationScore71.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 71.4%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
OfficeQAScore78.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 78.9%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Knowledge17 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HLEHumanity's Last ExamScore67.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7%

GapBest verifiedWeightWeighted 35%
HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without toolsScore64.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 64.4%

GapBest verifiedWeightWeighted 10%
HealthBench (raw)HealthBench raw scoreScore68.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 68.1%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
HealthBench (length-adjusted)HealthBench length-adjusted scoreScore60.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 60.6%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
HealthBench ProfessionalScore65.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 65.6%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
HealthBench Professional (raw)HealthBench Professional raw scoreScore77.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 77.1%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)BioMysteryBench Human SolvableScore89.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 90.1%

Gap0.8 behindWeightDisplay only
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)BioMysteryBench Human DifficultScore50.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 3.8 Flash · 56.5%

Gap6.5 behindWeightDisplay only
SpatialBench VerifiedLatchBio SpatialBench VerifiedScore72.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 72.5%

Gap0.5 behindWeightDisplay only
SingleCellBenchLatchBio SingleCellBenchScore61.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 61.2%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Morphology-to-molecule matchingAxiom Bio morphology-to-molecule matchingScore34.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 34.0%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Medicinal chemistryAnthropic medicinal-chemistry evaluationScore63.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 63.5%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Protein DesignAnthropic Protein Design evaluationScore60.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 60.2%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Protein Design library rankingAnthropic protein-design library-ranking taskScore56.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 56.0%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
De novo protein-binder designAnthropic de novo protein-binder design evaluationScore82.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 82.6%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Protocols (troubleshooting)Molecular Biology Protocols TroubleshootingScore73.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 73.7%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Protocols (understanding)Benchling Molecular Biology Protocols UnderstandingScore69.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 78.4%

Gap9.4 behindWeightDisplay only
Multilingual2 rows
Multilingual benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
GMMLUGlobal MMLUScore94.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 94.3%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
MILUMulti-task Indic Language Understanding BenchmarkScore93.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.1%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Math2 rows
Math benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (no tools)ArXivMath August 2026 without toolsScore91.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 91.2%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (tools)ArXivMath August 2026 with toolsScore96.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 96.9%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only

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 5.5 category percentile values

  • Agentic100th percentile
  • Coding98th percentile
  • ReasoningNot eligible
  • Multimodal96th percentile
  • Knowledge99th percentile
  • MultilingualNot eligible
  • Instruction followingNot eligible
  • MathNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#1/156
  2. Coding#4/159
  3. ReasoningNot ranked
  4. Multimodal#3/50
  5. Knowledge#3/187
  6. MultilingualNot ranked
  7. Inst. FollowingNot ranked
  8. MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

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.

Explore all models

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

Current modelClaude Opus 5.5 · 81.0 score · $12 blended per million tokens
30405060708090$0.50$1$5$10$25$50$100↘ frontierClaude Opus 5.5

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

Spec sheet

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

Maximum output
Not sourced yet
Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Parameters
Not disclosed by the provider
Availability
Claude API · Amazon Bedrock · Google Cloud · Microsoft Foundry · Claude Platform on AWSAnthropic Claude Opus 5.5 model documentation
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
API capabilities
Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
Prompt caching
Published at $0.20 per million cached input tokensClaude Opus 5.5 model documentation
Self-host
Weights are not published
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. A successor's displayed score stays at least 0.1 points above its predecessor; raw benchmark rows do not move. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. Apr 16, 2026

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

    Score 69.6 · $5 / $25

  2. May 28, 2026

    Claude Opus 4.8

    Score 72.1 · $5 / $25

  3. Jul 24, 2026

    Claude Opus 5

    Score 80.9 · $5 / $25

  4. Sep 22, 2026 · you are here

    Claude Opus 5.5

    Score 81.0 · $4 / $20

Base entry

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 5.5 ranks #4 of 236 on the public leaderboard with a score of 81.03/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.

Claude Opus 5.5 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 through the Claude API as `claude-opus-5-5`, plus Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, and Claude Platform on AWS. Anthropic lists a 1M-token context window and 128K standard output limit.

Official exact-value snapshot from Anthropic's September 22, 2026 Claude Opus 5.5 launch page and system card. The system-card results use adaptive thinking at maximum effort unless noted; Terminal-Bench 4.0 uses xhigh effort. Cursor's live leaderboard supplies the independent CursorBench 4.0 Max row, which remains display-only because it uses Cursor's agent harness. OSWorld 2.0 stores only the reported strict pass rate, not its paired partial-credit rate. The August 2026 ArXivMath release is kept on distinct display-only lanes rather than collapsed into the earlier June release.

Its explicit predecessor is Claude Opus 5. 48 of 454 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #1, while its lowest eligible position is Coding at #4. particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.

Radar

Claude Opus 5.5 release history

Full release history

Radar confirmed these at the source. Use Claude Opus 5.5 in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.

Questions

How does Claude Opus 5.5 perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #4 out of 236 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 81.03/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 48 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 good for knowledge and understanding?

Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #3 out of 187 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 81.5/100. 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 5.5 good for coding and programming?

Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #4 out of 159 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 76/100. 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 5.5 good for mathematics?

Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #1 out of 156 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 82.7/100. 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 5.5 good for multimodal and grounded tasks?

Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #3 out of 50 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 88.8/100. 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 5.5 good for multilingual tasks?

Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. Claude Opus 5.5 currently has 63 source-displayable rows across 454 tracked benchmark slots. 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 5.5?

Claude Opus 5.5 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.

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 with every tracked model504 comparisons

Last updated September 22, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Watch Claude Opus 5.5 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 2,000+ readers.