Anthropic Proprietary Released Sep 22, 2026 Updated
Claude Opus 5.5
ToolsGuide Scores, rankings, test results and price.
Model summary
- Text #9 / 416
640 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes only
- Vision #16 / 167
574 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes only
- Coding #1 / 147
674 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes 672, tests 675
- Agents #1 / 53
627 / 1,000
ToolsGuide Score· votes 639, tests 613
- Price per 1M tokens
In $4.00· Out $20.00
$4.00
Input · median coding model $0.75
Summary
Claude Opus 5.5 is Anthropic's model, released Sep 22, 2026. It's ranked in 4 categories and does best at coding: #1 of 147, with a ToolsGuide Score of 674 against a median of 316.
It also ranks #1 of 53 for agents (627), #9 of 416 for text (640), #16 of 167 for vision (574).
Its text and vision score uses votes only, because it has published fewer than two of the tests used for those categories.
It costs $4.00 per million input tokens and $20.00 per million output tokens, about 5.3× the median coding model ($0.75).
It has published results on 31 tests and has the top score on 18 of them, including SWE-Bench Pro and SWE-bench Multilingual.
Specifications
- Creator
Anthropic- Licence
- Proprietary
- Released
- Sep 22, 2026
- Context window
- 1M tokens
- Input price
- $4.00 / 1M
- Output price
- $20.00 / 1M
- Tests reported
- 31
- Settings ranked
- Claude Opus 5.5 (High), Claude Opus 5.5 (Max)
Model comparison
Against the ten best coding models.
Coding score
ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000 · Higher is better
Agents score
ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000 · Higher is better
Input price
USD per 1M input tokens · Lower is better
Leaderboards
Where Claude Opus 5.5 sits among the top 20 in each category.
Text
#9 of 416 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
Vision
#16 of 167 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
Coding
#1 of 147 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
Agents
#1 of 53 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model
By task
Scored from votes on each kind of prompt alone, on the same 1,000-point scale.
Score against price
Coding · the 10 priced models ranked closest · up and to the left is better value
Against its nearest rivals
Text prompts by kind · ToolsGuide Score from votes · hover for values
-
Claude Opus 5.5 -
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xHigh) -
GPT-6 Astra (Max)
Text
Claude Opus 5.5 (High) · hover a bar for its rank
Vision
Claude Opus 5.5 (High) · hover a bar for its rank
Coding
Claude Opus 5.5 (Max) · hover a bar for its rank
Test results
Every test Claude Opus 5.5 has a published result on, out of 100%, with its rank among the models that took it.
SWE-Bench Pro
#1 / 61Harder, longer software engineering tasks from real codebases.
89.9%
Self-reported · In the coding score
DeepSWE 1.1
#10 / 50DeepSWE 1.1 evaluates software engineering agents using the mini-swe-agent harness.
74.2%
Self-reported · In the coding score
SWE-bench Multilingual
#1 / 49A multilingual benchmark for issue resolving in software engineering that covers Java, TypeScript, JavaScript, Go, Rust, C, and C++. Contains 1,632 high-quality instances carefully annotated from 2,456 candidates by 68 expert annotators, designed to evaluate Large Language Models across diverse software ecosystems beyond Python.
93.9%
Self-reported
Terminal-Bench 4.0
#2 / 28Terminal-Bench 4.0 evaluates AI agents on real-world work in terminal and command-line containerized environments across 66 tasks, with emphasis on science-adjacent and frontier engineering problems. Relative to earlier Terminal-Bench releases, 4.0 increases timeouts and adaptively raises RAM/CPU on selected tasks to reduce harness and resource confounds.
66.4%
Self-reported · In the coding score· In the agents score
AutomationBench
#10 / 24AutomationBench is a tool-use benchmark that evaluates AI agents on automating real-world workflows, testing their ability to orchestrate tools and complete multi-step automation tasks.
40.0%
Self-reported · In the agents score
FrontierCode 1.1
#1 / 23FrontierCode 1.1 evaluates whether coding-agent changes are mergeable, using unit tests, maintainer-defined rubrics, and verifiers. Runs flagged for unfair internet use receive a zero score.
54.4%
Self-reported · In the coding score
HealthBench Professional
#3 / 19HealthBench Professional evaluates model capability and safety for clinician use cases using real clinician-style chats and physician-authored grading rubrics.
65.6%
Self-reported
Program Bench
#1 / 18Program Bench evaluates code-generation agents by asking them to recreate a program's behavior from only a compiled binary and documentation. It spans 200 tasks from small CLI tools to large systems such as FFmpeg and SQLite, with submissions judged against more than 248,000 fuzz-generated behavioral tests.
91.2%
Self-reported · In the coding score
OSWorld 2.0
#1 / 17OSWorld 2.0 is a benchmark of 108 long-horizon, real-world computer-use workflows spanning everyday and professional tasks. Each task is an end-to-end workflow that takes human users a median of about 1.6 hours, scored with a binary-completion metric, and targets challenges such as dynamic environments, cross-source reasoning, and implicit-state inference.
81.8%
Self-reported
Legal Agent Benchmark
#4 / 15The Legal Agent Benchmark (LAB) is Harvey's open-source benchmark for evaluating AI agents on complex, long-horizon legal work. Tasks are scored under an all-pass standard against expert-curated rubrics, where a task passes only if every required rubric criterion (facts, conclusions, citations, structure, and analytical moves) passes.
8.3%
Self-reported
HealthBench
#3 / 14An open-source benchmark for measuring performance and safety of large language models in healthcare, consisting of 5,000 multi-turn conversations evaluated by 262 physicians using 48,562 unique rubric criteria across health contexts and behavioral dimensions
60.6%
Self-reported
Humanity's Last Exam (no tools, text-only)
#1 / 14Text-only Humanity's Last Exam variant evaluated without tool use.
64.4%
Self-reported
OfficeQA Pro
#3 / 12OfficeQA Pro evaluates AI models on professional knowledge-work questions and tasks drawn from real office workflows, including document analysis, spreadsheet reasoning, and information synthesis across business domains.
67.7%
Self-reported
Humanity's Last Exam (with tools, text-only)
#1 / 10Text-only Humanity's Last Exam variant evaluated with tool use enabled.
67.7%
Self-reported
Global-MMLU
#1 / 8A comprehensive multilingual benchmark covering 42 languages that addresses cultural and linguistic biases in evaluation, with improved translation quality and culturally sensitive question subsets.
94.3%
Self-reported
BenchCAD
#2 / 7BenchCAD is a benchmark for programmatic CAD reasoning built from 17,900 execution-verified CadQuery programs spanning 106 industrial part families, roughly half anchored to real ISO, DIN, EN, ASME, and IEC specification tables. It decomposes CAD capability into matched tasks; the Vision2Code task requires models to generate CadQuery code from multi-view renders, scored by voxel IoU against the reference geometry.
73.0%
Self-reported
BenchCAD (with Python tool)
#2 / 7BenchCAD variant evaluated with access to a Python tool for programmatic CAD reasoning.
96.2%
Self-reported
BioMysteryBench
#2 / 7BioMysteryBench evaluates a model's ability to reason through challenging molecular biology problems, reporting performance on a hard subset and on the subset of problems solved by human experts.
89.3%
Self-reported
SWE-Bench Multimodal
#1 / 7SWE-Bench Multimodal extends SWE-Bench to evaluate language models on software engineering tasks that involve visual inputs such as screenshots, UI mockups, and diagrams alongside code understanding.
61.4%
Self-reported
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
#3 / 7Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 is a Stanford-led community benchmark of 70 tasks drawn from scientific research workflows across the life, physical, earth, mathematical, and engineering sciences. Tasks are authored and reviewed by scientists and researchers; scores are typically reported as accuracy with relatively large standard error due to strongly bimodal per-task outcomes.
58.7%
Self-reported
Chartography
#2 / 6Chartography evaluates professional chart understanding with 100 expert-written tasks drawn from real charts across science, engineering, finance, manufacturing, supply chain, and healthcare.
89.0%
Self-reported
AA-Briefcase v1.1
#1 / 5AA-Briefcase v1.1 evaluates multi-hour professional office work and reports Elo scores. Kept separate from unversioned AA-Briefcase results.
60.7%
Self-reported
ArXivMath
#1 / 5ArXivMath is a final-answer benchmark of research-level mathematics maintained by MathArena. Problems are extracted monthly from recent arXiv paper abstracts, then filtered through automated and manual checks to ensure they are self-contained, non-trivial, and verifiable. Because problems are drawn from active research, the benchmark is more realistic and more closely connected to mathematical research than contest or olympiad benchmarks.
91.2%
Self-reported
FrontierSWE V2
#1 / 5FrontierSWE V2 evaluates agents on open-ended technical projects and reports mean@5. Kept separate from FrontierSWE V1 dominance-score results, which are not comparable.
62.3%
Self-reported
GDPval-AA 2.1
#1 / 5Version 2.1 of the Artificial Analysis GDPval evaluation of professional knowledge work, reported as an Elo rating.
61.5%
Self-reported
Toolathlon-Verified
#1 / 5Verified Toolathlon evaluation of agent tool-use capability, as reported in the MiMo-V2.6 release.
77.8%
Self-reported
CursorBench 4.0
#1 / 3CursorBench 4.0 evaluates coding agents on long-horizon coding tasks from real Cursor sessions. Version 4.0 adds longer-horizon tasks; scores are not comparable with CursorBench 3.2.
57.8%
Self-reported
LatchBio SingleCellBench
#1 / 3LatchBio SingleCellBench tests analysis of single-cell RNA sequencing data across problems spanning standard workflows such as labeling cell types, finding differentially expressed genes, and correcting batch effects.
61.2%
Self-reported
LatchBio SpatialBench Verified
#2 / 3LatchBio SpatialBench Verified tests analysis of spatial transcriptomics data across externally validated problems, requiring the model to answer biological questions about the sample from analysis results.
72.0%
Self-reported
MILU
#1 / 3Multi-task Indic Language Understanding (MILU) covers 11 languages—10 Indic languages (Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Odia, Punjabi, Tamil, and Telugu) and English—and tests culturally grounded knowledge comprehension.
93.1%
Self-reported
OfficeQA
#1 / 3OfficeQA is a Databricks public benchmark that evaluates end-to-end grounded reasoning over a large corpus of historical U.S. Treasury Bulletin documents. Models must locate relevant tables across the corpus and perform precise numerical reasoning over them.
78.9%
Self-reported