Claude Opus 4.6
Not tested yet
Head-to-head comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs. Claude Opus 4.5
Compare published benchmark results from matching versions and cohorts, API pricing, and technical specifications. Any documented test setup differences remain visible.
- shared result series
- 13
- distinct benchmarks
- 8
- latest retrieval
- 2026-08-26
Change model selection
Specifications
General specifications
Release date, availability, context window, architecture, and published parameter counts at a glance. Undisclosed details remain marked as unavailable.
| Attribute | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Released | Feb 2026 | Nov 2025 |
| Availability | Active | Active |
| Model type | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Parameters | Not published | Not published |
| Architecture | Not published | Not published |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 200,000 tokens |
| Knowledge cutoff | May 2025 | March 2025 |
| Technical sources | Model, Context | Model, Context |
Pricing
API pricing compared
The table compares official standard API rates per 1M tokens, including published cache pricing. Batch, fast, priority, regional surcharges, tool calls, and cloud platform pricing are excluded.
| Price type | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| API input | $5 | $5 |
| API output | $25 | $25 |
| Cache read | $0.5 | $0.5 |
| Cache write (5 min.) | $6.25 | $6.25 |
| Cache write (1 hr.) | $10 | $10 |
| Price verified | 07/30/2026 Source | 07/30/2026 Source |
Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.5
API inputUSD per 1M tokens, base tier
Claude Opus 4.6Tie$5
Claude Opus 4.5Tie$5
API outputUSD per 1M tokens, base tier
Claude Opus 4.6Tie$25
Claude Opus 4.5Tie$25
Cache readUSD per 1M tokens, base tier
Claude Opus 4.6Tie$0.5
Claude Opus 4.5Tie$0.5
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie
Pricing by provider
Direct developer pricing and provider endpoint tariffs routed through OpenRouter are listed separately. Prices are in USD per 1M tokens. Context-dependent direct tiers plus regional, Flex, Priority, and other OpenRouter tariffs remain individually identifiable.
| Model | Provider | Purchase route and tariff | Input per 1M tokens | Output per 1M tokens | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Anthropic | Direct from developerStandard API | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source07/30/2026 |
| Amazon Bedrock | Via OpenRouteramazon-bedrock | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source09/12/2026 | |
| Anthropic | Via OpenRouteranthropic | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source09/12/2026 | |
| Azure | Via OpenRouterazure/global | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source09/12/2026 | |
| Claude Platform on AWS | Via OpenRouterclaude-on-aws | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source09/12/2026 | |
| Via OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/europe | $5.5 | $27.5 | Source09/12/2026 | ||
| Via OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/global | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source09/12/2026 | ||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Anthropic | Direct from developerStandard API | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source07/30/2026 |
| Amazon Bedrock | Via OpenRouteramazon-bedrock | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source09/12/2026 | |
| Amazon Bedrock | Via OpenRouteramazon-bedrock/eu-west-1 | $5.5 | $27.5 | Source09/12/2026 | |
| Anthropic | Via OpenRouteranthropic | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source09/12/2026 | |
| Azure | Via OpenRouterazure/global | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source09/12/2026 | |
| Claude Platform on AWS | Via OpenRouterclaude-on-aws | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source09/12/2026 | |
| Via OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/global | Lowest listed price: $5 | Lowest listed price: $25 | Source09/12/2026 |
Performance
Shared benchmarks
Only published results with the same benchmark version, task, metric, and comparison cohort are paired. Different reasoning levels, agents, harnesses, or output limits appear directly in the table.
Capability profile from matched benchmarks
Each axis averages directly matched benchmark families. A value of 100 means the stronger value within this pair, not a universal quality score.
Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.5
Reasoning: 100 / 85.3 (1 benchmark family)
Agentic tasks: 100 / 55.8 (1 benchmark family)
Multimodal: 100 / 99.6 (1 benchmark family)
Cybersecurity: 96 / 100 (1 benchmark family)
Education: 100 / 93 (1 benchmark family)
10 matched rows from 5 benchmark families were considered. The radar shows 5 of 5 comparable categories.
Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.5
METR Time Horizon50% time horizon. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.6Winner12 h (95% confidence interval 5.3 h to 60.6 h)
Claude Opus 4.54.9 h (95% confidence interval 2.7 h to 10.4 h)
MultiChallengeOverall. Higher is better. Test setup not documented as identical
Claude Opus 4.656.02% ± 1.08
Claude Opus 4.5Higher measured value58.97% ± 0.42
MultiNRCOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.6Winner48.34% ± 3.02
Claude Opus 4.541.23% ± 2.97
PRBench FinanceOverall. Higher is better. Test setup not documented as identical
Claude Opus 4.6Higher measured value53.28% ± 0.18
Claude Opus 4.546.16% ± 0.27
PRBench LegalOverall. Higher is better. Test setup not documented as identical
Claude Opus 4.6Higher measured value52.27% ± 0.66
Claude Opus 4.544.21% ± 0.34
SecCodeBench-V2Generation with security hints. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.670.65 %
Claude Opus 4.5Winner72.1 %
TutorBenchOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.6Winner53.55% ± 1.01
Claude Opus 4.549.82% ± 0.98
VISTAOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.6No clear lead45.48% ± 0.44
Claude Opus 4.545.32% ± 0.03
METR Time Horizon80% time horizon. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.6Winner1.2 h (95% confidence interval 27 min to 2.8 h)
Claude Opus 4.549.4 min (95% confidence interval 20.7 min to 1.7 h)
SecCodeBench-V2Generation without hints. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.651.05 %
Claude Opus 4.5Winner58.02 %
SecCodeBench-V2Repair with security hints. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.681.73 %
Claude Opus 4.5Winner82.18 %
SecCodeBench-V2Repair without hints. Higher is better. No documented setup difference
Claude Opus 4.673.1 %
Claude Opus 4.5Winner73.67 %
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie
| Benchmark and task | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
METR Time Horizon50% time horizonTest detailsNo documented difference in the test setupVersion: TH 1.1Metric: 50% time horizonScoring: Higher is betterClaude Opus 4.6: Snapshot: claude-opus-4-6-2026-02-05, Agent: ReAct, Harness: ReAct, Attempts: 6 independent runs per task Claude Opus 4.5: Snapshot: claude-opus-4-5-2025-11-24, Agent: ReAct, Harness: ReAct, Attempts: 6 independent runs per taskReAct agent with six independent runs per task. Time is estimated human completion duration. | Winner12 h (95% confidence interval 5.3 h to 60.6 h) | 4.9 h (95% confidence interval 2.7 h to 10.4 h) | METRSource detailsData as of: 05/08/2026 |
MultiChallengeOverallTest detailsTest setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: four multi-turn challenge typesMetric: rubric pass rateScoring: Higher is betterClaude Opus 4.6: Reasoning: none, Attempts: pass@1 Claude Opus 4.5: Reasoning: thinking, Attempts: pass@1Multi-turn conversations with binary task-specific rubrics. | 56.02% ± 1.08 95% confidence interval: ±1.08 | Higher measured value58.97% ± 0.42 95% confidence interval: ±0.42 | Scale AISource detailsData as of: 08/26/2026 |
MultiNRCOverallTest detailsNo documented difference in the test setupVersion: French, Spanish, and Chinese releaseMetric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: none, Attempts: pass@1Native, non-translated reasoning tasks with automatic evaluation. | Winner48.34% ± 3.02 95% confidence interval: ±3.02 | 41.23% ± 2.97 95% confidence interval: ±2.97 | Scale AISource detailsData as of: 08/26/2026 |
PRBench FinanceOverallTest detailsTest setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: full finance setMetric: weighted rubric scoreScoring: Higher is betterClaude Opus 4.6: Reasoning: none, Attempts: pass@1 Claude Opus 4.5: Reasoning: thinking, Attempts: pass@1600 finance tasks with task-specific rubrics and o4-mini as judge. | Higher measured value53.28% ± 0.18 95% confidence interval: ±0.18 | 46.16% ± 0.27 95% confidence interval: ±0.27 | Scale AISource detailsData as of: 08/26/2026 |
PRBench LegalOverallTest detailsTest setup not documented as identicalNo direct winnerVersion: full legal setMetric: weighted rubric scoreScoring: Higher is betterClaude Opus 4.6: Reasoning: none, Attempts: pass@1 Claude Opus 4.5: Reasoning: thinking, Attempts: pass@1500 legal tasks with task-specific rubrics and o4-mini as judge. | Higher measured value52.27% ± 0.66 95% confidence interval: ±0.66 | 44.21% ± 0.34 95% confidence interval: ±0.34 | Scale AISource detailsData as of: 08/26/2026 |
SecCodeBench-V2Generation with security hintsTest detailsNo documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2.2.0Metric: security-aware generation pass@1Scoring: Higher is better98 project cases. Functional tests run before dynamic exploit checks and security scoring. | 70.65 % | Winner72.1 % | SecCodeBenchSource detailsData as of: 02/16/2026 |
TutorBenchOverallTest detailsNo documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1,490-task releaseMetric: weighted rubric scoreScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: none, Attempts: pass@11,490 tasks with weighted rubrics and Claude 4 Sonnet as judge. | Winner53.55% ± 1.01 95% confidence interval: ±1.01 | 49.82% ± 0.98 95% confidence interval: ±0.98 | Scale AISource detailsData as of: 08/26/2026 |
VISTAOverallTest detailsNo documented difference in the test setupNo clear leadVersion: 758 private prompt-image pairsMetric: rubric scoreScoring: Higher is betterSettings: Reasoning: none, Attempts: pass@1758 single-turn image-text tasks with structured yes-no rubrics. | No clear lead45.48% ± 0.44 95% confidence interval: ±0.44 | 45.32% ± 0.03 95% confidence interval: ±0.03 | Scale AISource detailsData as of: 08/26/2026 |
METR Time Horizon80% time horizonTest detailsNo documented difference in the test setupVersion: TH 1.1Metric: 80% time horizonScoring: Higher is betterClaude Opus 4.6: Snapshot: claude-opus-4-6-2026-02-05, Agent: ReAct, Harness: ReAct, Attempts: 6 independent runs per task Claude Opus 4.5: Snapshot: claude-opus-4-5-2025-11-24, Agent: ReAct, Harness: ReAct, Attempts: 6 independent runs per taskReAct agent with six independent runs per task. Time is estimated human completion duration. | Winner1.2 h (95% confidence interval 27 min to 2.8 h) | 49.4 min (95% confidence interval 20.7 min to 1.7 h) | METRSource detailsData as of: 05/08/2026 |
SecCodeBench-V2Generation without hintsTest detailsNo documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2.2.0Metric: native generation pass@1Scoring: Higher is better98 project cases. Functional tests run before dynamic exploit checks and security scoring. | 51.05 % | Winner58.02 % | SecCodeBenchSource detailsData as of: 02/16/2026 |
SecCodeBench-V2Repair with security hintsTest detailsNo documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2.2.0Metric: security-aware repair pass@1Scoring: Higher is better98 project cases. Functional tests run before dynamic exploit checks and security scoring. | 81.73 % | Winner82.18 % | SecCodeBenchSource detailsData as of: 02/16/2026 |
SecCodeBench-V2Repair without hintsTest detailsNo documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2.2.0Metric: native repair pass@1Scoring: Higher is better98 project cases. Functional tests run before dynamic exploit checks and security scoring. | 73.1 % | Winner73.67 % | SecCodeBenchSource detailsData as of: 02/16/2026 |
SecCodeBench-V2Weighted totalTest detailsNo documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2.2.0Metric: weighted pass@1Scoring: Higher is better98 project cases. Functional tests run before dynamic exploit checks and security scoring. | 64.9 % | Winner68.1 % | SecCodeBenchSource detailsData as of: 02/16/2026 |
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie | |||
Our model tests
Community tests you can inspect
Compare how the models respond to the same prompt. Each test shows the first attempt, with no subsequent fixes to the generated code. These results do not contribute to an overall score.
Pelican on a bicycle
A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.
Claude Opus 4.5
Not tested yet
Prompt and test conditions
Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle
Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens
Task origin (Simon Willison)How to read this comparison
Winning one benchmark is not an overall verdict
Your workload, budget, and required context length matter most. A coding benchmark says little about visual understanding or agent performance.
The standard price table uses direct developer rates. The provider comparison labels OpenRouter endpoints, regions, and special tariffs separately.
Every result links to its measurement source and retrieval date. Labels distinguish vendor reports, official benchmark leaderboards, and independent evaluations. Disputed or archived results are excluded.
More matchups
Related LLM comparisons
Compare Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Opus 4.5 with other leading models using the same data and benchmark logic.