Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs o1
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 34 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 34 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and o1 in 1 category; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 27.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Cybench: 93% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 10% for o1.
- Claude Opus 4.6 is cheaper at $5 / $25 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | o1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 58.2 | 40.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | 2024-09-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 200K |
| Max output | 128K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $60 |
| Results tracked | 68 | 52 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), o1: 46.1 (#70)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 78% | 47.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1536 | 1367 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1547 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), o1: 24.6 (#117)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 93% | 10% |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | 51.1% |
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), o1: 27.9 (#111)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | 41.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | 30.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | 15% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | 5.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1371 |
| DTBench | 91.2% | 74.7% |
| LMCA | 55.8% | 22.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.24 | 141.91 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |
Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), o1: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1388 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | 9.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), o1: 41.5 (#110)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | 76.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | 8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | 41.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1361 |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |
Multimodal Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), o1: 34.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | 1168 |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| VPCT | — | 37% |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), o1: 48.6 (#142)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1489 | 1358 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1394 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | 1344 |
| LMArena German | 1502 | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1510 | 1345 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), o1: 74.8 (#86)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1367 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |
Long Context o1 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), o1: 50.3 (#9)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1378 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), o1: 55.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1503 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1505 | 1348 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1513 | 1369 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than o1?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or o1?
Claude Opus 4.6 is cheaper. It lists at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or o1 better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 46.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and o1 share?
34 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.