Capability
81/100
field median 56.6
#4 of 236 ranked models
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 changesReleased Sep 22, 2026 — see all recent releases
Data as of September 22, 2026 · How the score is built
Claude Opus 5.5 will be repriced, updated or retired. Get each notice with its source and date. Follow model changes
Check the published record for the model and serving route you use.
Check this modelShare or export
Agentic ranks #1. Particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
48 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Independent runtime speed has not been measured.
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
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.
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 #1 of 156Percentile 100thWeight 22%11 benchmarksVerified | 82.7 | #1 of 156 | 100th | 22% | 11 benchmarks | Verified |
| CodingRank #4 of 159Percentile 98thWeight 20%9 benchmarksVerified | 76.0 | #4 of 159 | 98th | 20% | 9 benchmarks | Verified |
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalRank #3 of 50Percentile 96thWeight 12%7 benchmarksVerified | 88.8 | #3 of 50 | 96th | 12% | 7 benchmarks | Verified |
| KnowledgeRank #3 of 187Percentile 99thWeight 12%17 benchmarksVerified | 81.5 | #3 of 187 | 99th | 12% | 17 benchmarks | Verified |
| MultilingualWeight 7%2 benchmarksVerified | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MathWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
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.
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Pro | Score89.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9% | GapBest verified | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| SWE Multilingual | Score93.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9% | GapBest verified | WeightWeighted 5% | Provider exact |
| FrontierCode 1.1 Main | Score54.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 54.4% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| CursorBench 4.0 | Score57.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 57.8% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| SWE MultimodalSWE-bench Multimodal | Score61.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 61.4% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| DeepSWE | Score74.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.3 · 75.4% | Gap1.2 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 |
| FrontierSWE v2 | Score62.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 65.5% | Gap3.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ProgramBenchProgramBench: Can Language Models Rebuild Programs From Scratch? | Score91.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 93.0% | Gap1.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AutomationBench | Score40.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 54.8% | Gap14.8 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Provider exact |
| OSWorld 2.0 | Score48.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 72.6% | Gap23.9 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 | Score66.40% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 66.40% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 | Score58.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 64.6% | Gap5.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with tools | Score67.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Legal Agent Benchmark all-pass rate — Harvey held-out set | Score8.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 11.7% | Gap3.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Legal Agent Benchmark mean criterion-pass rate — Harvey held-out set | Score91.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 94.1% | Gap2.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon-Verified | Score77.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 80.6% | Gap2.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3 | Score82.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 87.0% | Gap4.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Toolathlon Verified Pass cubed | Score72.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 73.1% | Gap0.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsToolathlon Verified average assistant turns | Score26.9 turns | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 26.9 turns | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA Pro | Score67.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7% | GapBest verified | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| Chartography (tools)Chartography with image and code tools | Score89.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.0% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Chartography (no tools)Chartography without tools | Score64.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 64.4% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)BenchCAD Vision2Code voxel IoU without tools | Score0.730 | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 0.730 | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)BenchCAD Vision2Code voxel IoU with tools | Score0.962 | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 0.962 | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Biomedical image analysisAnthropic biomedical-image-analysis evaluation | Score71.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 71.4% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| OfficeQA | Score78.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 78.9% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score67.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7% | GapBest verified | WeightWeighted 35% | Provider exact |
| HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without tools | Score64.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 64.4% | GapBest verified | WeightWeighted 10% | Provider exact |
| HealthBench (raw)HealthBench raw score | Score68.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 68.1% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)HealthBench length-adjusted score | Score60.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 60.6% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HealthBench Professional | Score65.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 65.6% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)HealthBench Professional raw score | Score77.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 77.1% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)BioMysteryBench Human Solvable | Score89.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 90.1% | Gap0.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)BioMysteryBench Human Difficult | Score50.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.8 Flash · 56.5% | Gap6.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SpatialBench VerifiedLatchBio SpatialBench Verified | Score72.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 72.5% | Gap0.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SingleCellBenchLatchBio SingleCellBench | Score61.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 61.2% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Morphology-to-molecule matchingAxiom Bio morphology-to-molecule matching | Score34.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 34.0% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Medicinal chemistryAnthropic medicinal-chemistry evaluation | Score63.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 63.5% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Protein DesignAnthropic Protein Design evaluation | Score60.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 60.2% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Protein Design library rankingAnthropic protein-design library-ranking task | Score56.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 56.0% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| De novo protein-binder designAnthropic de novo protein-binder design evaluation | Score82.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 82.6% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Molecular Biology Protocols Troubleshooting | Score73.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 73.7% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Protocols (understanding)Benchling Molecular Biology Protocols Understanding | Score69.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 78.4% | Gap9.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GMMLUGlobal MMLU | Score94.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 94.3% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| MILUMulti-task Indic Language Understanding Benchmark | Score93.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.1% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (no tools)ArXivMath August 2026 without tools | Score91.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 91.2% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (tools)ArXivMath August 2026 with tools | Score96.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 96.9% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
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
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
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.
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
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
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.
Apr 16, 2026
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Score 69.6 · $5 / $25
May 28, 2026
Claude Opus 4.8Score 72.1 · $5 / $25
Jul 24, 2026
Claude Opus 5Score 80.9 · $5 / $25
Sep 22, 2026 · you are here
Claude Opus 5.5Score 81.0 · $4 / $20
Base entry
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.
Anthropic · Model release
Radar confirmed these at the source. Use Claude Opus 5.5 in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Related resources
Last updated September 22, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.