# Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Opus 5

> Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 58.3 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-6-vs-claude-opus-5
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 46

## Summary

- They share 46 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 2 categories and Claude Opus 5 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5 leads 86.1 to 62.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 50% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 99% for Claude Opus 5.
- Both cost about the same: $5 input and $25 output per million tokens.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 67.7 |
| Rank | 18 | 4 |
| Context | 1M | 1M |
| Input $/M | $5 | $5 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#15)
- Claude Opus 5: 67.0 (#5)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | 53.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1546 | 1694 |
| WeirdML | 78% | 91.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1535 | 1533 |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | 2,165 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| DeepSWE | — | 73.6% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| CursorBench | — | 46.6% |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| FrontierSWE | — | 52% |
| SciCode | — | 56.4% |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4)
- Claude Opus 5: 55.5 (#1)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | 65.8% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | 48.7% |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | 79.6% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | 11,182 |
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 31.4% |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| PostTrainBench | — | 35% |
| BALROG | — | 63.4% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 24% |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21)
- Claude Opus 5: 77.1 (#3)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | 90.4% |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | 80.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | 94.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | 97.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | 42% |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | 45.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1525 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | 59% |
| DTBench | 91.2% | 97.9% |
| LMCA | 55.8% | 64.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.36 | 162.67 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| CritPt | — | 29.1% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.12 |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25)
- Claude Opus 5: 86.1 (#6)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | 85.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | 73.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | 98.9% |
| ProofBench | 50% | 99% |
| LMArena Math | 1517 | 1533 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23)
- Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#8)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | 93.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | 59.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1558 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67)
- Claude Opus 5: 51.1 (#6)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | 1321 |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | 60.8% |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | 1516 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 30.4% |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4)
- Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#3)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1490 | 1500 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1575 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | 1522 |
| LMArena German | 1504 | 1522 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | 1510 |
| LMArena Korean | 1465 | 1526 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1507 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1512 | 1519 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3)
- Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#5)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1516 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13)
- Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#20)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1516 |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9)
- Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#2)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1506 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1506 | 1491 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | 2133 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | 1385 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1514 | 1496 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Claude Opus 5?

Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 58.3 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Opus 5?

Claude Opus 5 is cheaper. It lists at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Opus 5 better for coding?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.0 versus 57.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Opus 5 share?

46 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Claude Opus 5 has 57.