Skip to content

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

Full text leaderboard →

Vision

#16 of 167 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model

Full vision leaderboard →

Coding

#1 of 147 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model

Full coding leaderboard →

Agents

#1 of 53 · ToolsGuide Score out of 1,000, where 1,000 is a flawless model

Full agents leaderboard →

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

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 / 61

    Harder, longer software engineering tasks from real codebases.

    89.9%

    Self-reported · In the coding score

  • DeepSWE 1.1

    #10 / 50

    DeepSWE 1.1 evaluates software engineering agents using the mini-swe-agent harness.

    74.2%

    Self-reported · In the coding score

  • SWE-bench Multilingual

    #1 / 49

    A 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 / 28

    Terminal-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 / 24

    AutomationBench 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 / 23

    FrontierCode 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 / 19

    HealthBench 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 / 18

    Program 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 / 17

    OSWorld 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 / 15

    The 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 / 14

    An 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 / 14

    Text-only Humanity's Last Exam variant evaluated without tool use.

    64.4%

    Self-reported

  • OfficeQA Pro

    #3 / 12

    OfficeQA 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 / 10

    Text-only Humanity's Last Exam variant evaluated with tool use enabled.

    67.7%

    Self-reported

  • Global-MMLU

    #1 / 8

    A 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 / 7

    BenchCAD 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 / 7

    BenchCAD variant evaluated with access to a Python tool for programmatic CAD reasoning.

    96.2%

    Self-reported

  • BioMysteryBench

    #2 / 7

    BioMysteryBench 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 / 7

    SWE-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 / 7

    Terminal-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 / 6

    Chartography 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 / 5

    AA-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 / 5

    ArXivMath 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 / 5

    FrontierSWE 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 / 5

    Version 2.1 of the Artificial Analysis GDPval evaluation of professional knowledge work, reported as an Elo rating.

    61.5%

    Self-reported

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    #1 / 5

    Verified Toolathlon evaluation of agent tool-use capability, as reported in the MiMo-V2.6 release.

    77.8%

    Self-reported

  • CursorBench 4.0

    #1 / 3

    CursorBench 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 / 3

    LatchBio 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 / 3

    LatchBio 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 / 3

    Multi-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 / 3

    OfficeQA 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