Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) vs GPT-5
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Claude Opus 4.6 wins on 30/34 benchmarks
Claude Opus 4.6 wins 30 of 34 shared benchmarks. Leads in knowledge · agentic · reasoning.
Category leads
knowledge·Claude Opus 4.6agentic·Claude Opus 4.6reasoning·Claude Opus 4.6arena·Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)general·Claude Opus 4.6math·Claude Opus 4.6coding·Claude Opus 4.6safety·Claude Opus 4.6
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Opus 4.6
#136 by perf·#9 by attention
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
#170 by perf·#9 by attention
GPT-5
#100 by perf·#4 by attention
Best value
GPT-5
2.9x better value than Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.6
3.2 pts/$
$15.00/M
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
0.5 pts/$
$90.00/M
GPT-5
9.4 pts/$
$5.63/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
34 benchmarks · 3 models
Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)GPT-5
Professional Reasoning · Finance
Claude Opus 4.6
53.3
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
53.3
GPT-5
51.3
Professional Reasoning · Legal
Claude Opus 4.6
52.3
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
52.3
GPT-5
49.0
APEX-Agents
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +28.0
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Claude Opus 4.6
46.3
GPT-5
18.3
ARC-AGI
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +28.3
ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization.
Claude Opus 4.6
94.0
GPT-5
65.7
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +59.3
ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data.
Claude Opus 4.6
69.2
GPT-5
9.9
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) leads by +5.2
Claude Opus 4.6
1537.0
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
1542.2
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) leads by +6.4
Claude Opus 4.6
1497.3
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
1503.7
Chess Puzzles
GPT-5 leads by +21.0
Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities.
Claude Opus 4.6
12.7
GPT-5
33.7
DeepResearch Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +5.7
DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses.
Claude Opus 4.6
55.3
GPT-5
49.6
Dtbench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +0.9
Claude Opus 4.6
85.3
GPT-5
84.5
Ebr Bench
Claude Opus 4.6
12.7
GPT-5
12.7
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +8.3
FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.6
40.7
GPT-5
32.4
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +10.4
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning.
Claude Opus 4.6
22.9
GPT-5
12.5
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +4.9
Claude Opus 4.6
26.8
GPT-5
21.9
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +10.5
Claude Opus 4.6
66.0
GPT-5
55.4
GPQA diamond
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +5.8
Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs.
Claude Opus 4.6
87.4
GPT-5
81.6
GSO-Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +34.3
GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues.
Claude Opus 4.6
41.2
GPT-5
6.9
HLE
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +9.6
HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%.
Claude Opus 4.6
31.1
GPT-5
21.6
Lmca
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +18.5
Claude Opus 4.6
65.6
GPT-5
47.0
Metr Time Horizons
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +9.3
Claude Opus 4.6
78.9
GPT-5
69.6
Mystery Game Puzzles
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +2.2
Claude Opus 4.6
17.4
GPT-5
15.2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +3.1
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills.
Claude Opus 4.6
94.4
GPT-5
91.4
Proofbench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +32.0
Claude Opus 4.6
50.0
GPT-5
18.0
Remote Labor Index
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +2.5
Claude Opus 4.6
4.2
GPT-5
1.7
MASK
Claude Opus 4.6
96.3
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
96.3
Remote Labor Index (RLI)
Claude Opus 4.6
4.2
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
4.2
SWE Atlas · Codebase QnA
Claude Opus 4.6
33.3
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
33.3
SWE Atlas · Test Writing
Claude Opus 4.6
36.7
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
36.7
VisualToolBench (VTB)
Claude Opus 4.6
27.5
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
27.5
SimpleBench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +13.1
SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking.
Claude Opus 4.6
61.1
GPT-5
48.0
SimpleQA Verified
GPT-5 leads by +3.1
SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information.
Claude Opus 4.6
47.0
GPT-5
50.1
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +5.2
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Claude Opus 4.6
78.7
GPT-5
73.5
Terminal Bench
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +30.2
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Claude Opus 4.6
79.8
GPT-5
49.6
WeirdML
Claude Opus 4.6 leads by +17.3
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Claude Opus 4.6
78.0
GPT-5
60.7
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) | GPT-5 |
|---|---|---|---|
Professional Reasoning · Finance | 53.3 | 53.3 | 51.3 |
Professional Reasoning · Legal | 52.3 | 52.3 | 49.0 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | 46.3 | — | 18.3 |
ARC-AGI ARC-AGI · the original Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing whether AI can solve novel visual pattern recognition tasks without memorization. | 94.0 | — | 65.7 |
ARC-AGI-2 ARC-AGI-2 · the second iteration of the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus, testing novel pattern recognition and abstract reasoning without prior training data. | 69.2 | — | 9.9 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1537.0 | 1542.2 | — |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1497.3 | 1503.7 | — |
Chess Puzzles Chess Puzzles · tests strategic and tactical reasoning by having models solve chess puzzle positions, evaluating lookahead and pattern recognition abilities. | 12.7 | — | 33.7 |
DeepResearch Bench DeepResearch Bench · evaluates AI on complex multi-step research tasks requiring information gathering, synthesis, and producing comprehensive analyses. | 55.3 | — | 49.6 |
Dtbench | 85.3 | — | 84.5 |
Ebr Bench | 12.7 | — | 12.7 |
FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Private FrontierMath (Feb 2025) · original research-level math problems created by mathematicians, testing capabilities at the boundary of current AI mathematical reasoning. | 40.7 | — | 32.4 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-2025-07-01-Private FrontierMath Tier 4 (Jul 2025) · the most challenging tier of frontier mathematics, containing problems that push the absolute limits of AI mathematical reasoning. | 22.9 | — | 12.5 |
FrontierMath-Tier-4-v2-Private | 26.8 | — | 21.9 |
FrontierMath-Tiers-1-3-v2-Private | 66.0 | — | 55.4 |
GPQA diamond Graduate-Level Google-Proof QA (Diamond set) · expert-crafted questions in physics, biology, and chemistry that are difficult even for domain PhDs. | 87.4 | — | 81.6 |
GSO-Bench GSO-Bench · evaluates AI models on real-world open-source software engineering tasks, testing the ability to understand and resolve actual GitHub issues. | 41.2 | — | 6.9 |
HLE HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) · a reasoning benchmark designed to be the hardest public evaluation of AI. Questions span mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic · curated to be at or beyond the frontier of human expert capability. Tested with and without tool augmentation. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 46.9% without tools and 54.7% with tools · making it one of the few benchmarks where the top score is below 60%. | 31.1 | — | 21.6 |
Lmca | 65.6 | — | 47.0 |
Metr Time Horizons | 78.9 | — | 69.6 |
Mystery Game Puzzles | 17.4 | — | 15.2 |
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 · simulated American Invitational Mathematics Examination problems testing advanced problem-solving skills. | 94.4 | — | 91.4 |
Proofbench | 50.0 | — | 18.0 |
Remote Labor Index | 4.2 | — | 1.7 |
MASK | 96.3 | 96.3 | — |
Remote Labor Index (RLI) | 4.2 | 4.2 | — |
SWE Atlas · Codebase QnA | 33.3 | 33.3 | — |
SWE Atlas · Test Writing | 36.7 | 36.7 | — |
VisualToolBench (VTB) | 27.5 | 27.5 | — |
SimpleBench SimpleBench · tests fundamental reasoning capabilities with straightforward problems designed to expose gaps in basic logical and spatial thinking. | 61.1 | — | 48.0 |
SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified · short factual questions with verified answers, measuring factual accuracy and the tendency to hallucinate or provide incorrect information. | 47.0 | — | 50.1 |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | 78.7 | — | 73.5 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | 79.8 | — | 49.6 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | 78.0 | — | 60.7 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $5.00 | $25.00 | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | $100.00 | |
| $30.00 | $150.00 | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | $600.00 | |
| $1.25 | $10.00 | 400K tokens (~200 books) | $34.38 |