Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Data as of October 6, 2026 · How the score is built

CurrentProprietaryReasoning

Released Sep 22, 20261M contextClaude Opus 5.5 system card

Claude Opus 5.5

Decision readingClaude Opus 5.5 scores 86.4 out of 100 and ranks #1 of 214. This profile shows 53 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

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

86.4/100

field median 52#1 of 214 ranked models

Public

#1of 214

Verified #1 of 83

Price

$4input / $20 output

input median $0.95cached $0.20 · batch + cache $0.10 · blended $12

Speed

97tok/s

field median 98 tok/sFirst token 744.81 s

Context

1Mtokens

field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately

Strongest published evidence

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

Validate before choosing

53 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Multimodal & Grounded is its lowest eligible category at #3.

Source-linked · 53 displayable benchmark rows

Follow model changes

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

Check this model

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 120Percentile 100thWeight 22%12 benchmarksVerified
88.5
CodingRank #2 of 144Percentile 99thWeight 20%10 benchmarksVerified
83.5
ReasoningRank #3 of 27Percentile 92ndWeight 17%3 benchmarksVerified
82.4
MultimodalRank #3 of 49Percentile 96thWeight 12%7 benchmarksVerified
88.8
KnowledgeRank #1 of 173Percentile 100thWeight 12%16 benchmarksVerified
88.3
MultilingualWeight 7%2 benchmarksVerified
Score pending
Inst. FollowingWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified
Score pending
MathWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified
Score pending

53 of 655 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. Agentic12/12 verified
  2. Coding10/10 verified
  3. Reasoning3/3 verified
  4. Multimodal7/7 verified
  5. Knowledge16/16 verified
  6. Multilingual2/2 verified
  7. Inst. Following1/1 verified
  8. Math2/2 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 5.5 category percentile values

  • Agentic100th percentile
  • Coding99th percentile
  • Reasoning92nd percentile
  • Multimodal96th percentile
  • Knowledge100th percentile
  • MultilingualNot eligible
  • Instruction followingNot eligible
  • MathNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#1/120
  2. Coding#2/144
  3. Reasoning#3/27
  4. Multimodal#3/49
  5. Knowledge#1/173
  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.

Coding10 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 verifiedWeight26% ref. weight
DeepSWEScore74.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 77.9%

Gap3.7 behindWeight15% ref. weight
FrontierSWE v2Score62.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 65.5%

Gap3.2 behindWeight8% ref. weight
SWE MultilingualScore93.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9%

GapBest verifiedWeight5% ref. weight
FrontierCode 1.1 MainScore54.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 54.4%

GapBest verifiedWeight4% ref. weight
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
FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedScore63.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 64.5%

Gap0.9 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
PostTrainBench v1.1Score49.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 49.3%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Agentic12 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
OSWorld 2.0Score48.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 72.6%

Gap23.9 behindWeight10% ref. weight
Terminal-Bench 4.0Score66.40%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 70.60%

Gap4.2 behindWeight8% ref. weight
AutomationBenchScore40.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 54.8%

Gap14.8 behindWeight5% ref. weight
HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with toolsScore67.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7%

GapBest verifiedWeight3% ref. weight
Toolathlon-VerifiedScore77.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 80.6%

Gap2.8 behindWeight3% ref. weight
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Score58.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 64.6%

Gap5.9 behindWeightDisplay 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 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 Sonnet 5.5 · 31.6 turns

Gap4.7 behindWeightDisplay only
CWE-bench v1Score67.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 68.0%

Gap1 behindWeightDisplay only
Reasoning3 rows
Reasoning benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2Score91.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 95%

Gap3.3 behindWeightWeighted 25%
ARC-AGI-1ARC-AGI-1 Semi-Private EvaluationScore97.50%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 98.50%

Gap1 behindWeightDisplay only
GraphWalks BFS 256K–1MScore66.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 84.2%

Gap17.4 behindWeightDisplay 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 Sonnet 5.5 · 90.2%

Gap1.2 behindWeightDisplay only
Chartography (no tools)Chartography without toolsScore64.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 71.6%

Gap7.2 behindWeightDisplay only
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)BenchCAD Vision2Code voxel IoU without toolsScore0.730Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 0.747

Gap0 behindWeightDisplay only
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)BenchCAD Vision2Code voxel IoU with toolsScore0.962Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 0.963

Gap0 behindWeightDisplay only
Biomedical image analysisAnthropic biomedical-image-analysis evaluationScore71.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 72.2%

Gap0.8 behindWeightDisplay only
OfficeQAScore78.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 78.9%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Knowledge16 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without toolsScore64.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 64.4%

GapBest verifiedWeight7% ref. weight
HealthBench (raw)HealthBench raw scoreScore68.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 69.4%

Gap1.3 behindWeightDisplay only
HealthBench (length-adjusted)HealthBench length-adjusted scoreScore60.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 65.4%

Gap4.8 behindWeightDisplay only
HealthBench ProfessionalScore65.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 69.2%

Gap3.6 behindWeightDisplay only
HealthBench Professional (raw)HealthBench Professional raw scoreScore77.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 · 65.3%

Gap1.8 behindWeightDisplay 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
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 attemptsScore1.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 0.7%

Gap0.3 behindWeightDisplay 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

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 5.5 · 86.4 score · $12 blended per million tokens

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

30405060708090100$0.10$0.50$1$5$10$25$50$100↘ frontierClaude Opus 5.5

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. Apr 16, 2026

    Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)

    Score 68.0 · $5 / $25

  2. May 28, 2026

    Claude Opus 4.8

    Score 69.1 · $5 / $25

  3. Jul 24, 2026

    Claude Opus 5

    Score 79.3 · $5 / $25

  4. Sep 22, 2026 · you are here

    Claude Opus 5.5

    Score 86.4 · $4 / $20

Base entry

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.

Radar

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

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 #1 of 214 on the public leaderboard with a score of 86.39/100. Its source-verified position is #1 of 83.

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. 53 of 655 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 Multimodal & Grounded at #3. particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.

Last updated October 6, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Questions

How does Claude Opus 5.5 perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #1 out of 214 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 86.39/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 53 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 #1 out of 173 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 88.3/100. 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 5.5 good for coding and programming?

Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #2 out of 144 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 83.5/100. 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 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 reasoning and logic?

Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #3 out of 27 eligible models for reasoning and logic, with a public category score of 82.4/100. 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 5.5 good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #1 out of 120 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 88.5/100. 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 multimodal and grounded tasks?

Claude Opus 5.5 ranks #3 out of 49 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 instruction following?

Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 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 73 source-displayable rows across 655 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.

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 5,500+ readers.

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 with every tracked model881 comparisons