Model comparison
AI Co-Mathematician vs Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.6 has enough public results to be ranked (#18); AI Co-Mathematician does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. AI Co-Mathematician scores higher in 1 category and Claude Opus 4.6 in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where AI Co-Mathematician leads 71.7 to 62.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath Tier 4: 75.6% for AI Co-Mathematician and 26.8% for Claude Opus 4.6.
Side by side
| AI Co-Mathematician | Claude Opus 4.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 57.6 | 58.3 |
| Released | 2026-05-08 | 2026-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $5 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $25 |
| Results tracked | 2 | 68 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
AI Co-Mathematician: —, Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#15)
| Benchmark | AI Co-Mathematician | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.7% |
| FrontierCode | — | 26.6% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 75.6% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1546 |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | — | 72% |
| GSO | — | 41.2% |
| WeirdML | — | 78% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1535 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 996.5 |
| AlgoTune | — | 1.47 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
AI Co-Mathematician: —, Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4)
| Benchmark | AI Co-Mathematician | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 79.8% |
| APEX-Agents | — | 46.3% |
| Remote Labor Index | — | 4.2% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 27.3% |
| Cybench | — | 93% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 55.3% |
| GBAEval | — | 44.1% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1253 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 78.9% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 8,018 |
Reasoning Not comparable
AI Co-Mathematician: —, Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21)
| Benchmark | AI Co-Mathematician | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 69.2% |
| SimpleBench | — | 67.6% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 83.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 92.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 94% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 7.6% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 80.6% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 12.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1527 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 25% |
| DTBench | — | 91.2% |
| LMCA | — | 55.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 155.36 |
| ForecastBench | — | 60 |
Math AI Co-Mathematician leads
AI Co-Mathematician: 71.7, Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25)
| Benchmark | AI Co-Mathematician | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 75.6% | 26.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 47.9% | 22.9% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 66% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 78.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 94.4% |
| ProofBench | — | 50% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1517 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 40.7% |
Knowledge Not comparable
AI Co-Mathematician: —, Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23)
| Benchmark | AI Co-Mathematician | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 34.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 47% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.2% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1546 |
Multimodal Not comparable
AI Co-Mathematician: —, Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67)
| Benchmark | AI Co-Mathematician | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1316 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 28.3% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1507 |
Multilingual Not comparable
AI Co-Mathematician: —, Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4)
| Benchmark | AI Co-Mathematician | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1490 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1551 |
| LMArena French | — | 1513 |
| LMArena German | — | 1504 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1484 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1465 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1497 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1512 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
AI Co-Mathematician: —, Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3)
| Benchmark | AI Co-Mathematician | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1523 |
Long Context Not comparable
AI Co-Mathematician: —, Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13)
| Benchmark | AI Co-Mathematician | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | — | 20.7% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 17% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1520 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
AI Co-Mathematician: —, Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9)
| Benchmark | AI Co-Mathematician | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1504 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1506 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1809 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1223 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1514 |
Frequently asked questions
Is AI Co-Mathematician better than Claude Opus 4.6?
Claude Opus 4.6 has enough public results to be ranked (#18); AI Co-Mathematician does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do AI Co-Mathematician and Claude Opus 4.6 share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. AI Co-Mathematician has 2 scored results on Noometry and Claude Opus 4.6 has 68.