Skip to content
Model Pareto

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in coding, vision, hard reasoning and agents; Claude Opus 5 in writing & chat. Claude Opus 5 costs 1.3× as much as Claude Opus 5.5 ($10.0 vs $8.00 per million tokens, blended 3:1 input:output).
Claude Opus 5.5Claude Opus 5
Focus

Coding: quality vs price

Compared models are ringed; the other 101 ranked here are greyed.

Lower price is better. Pareto frontier: Granite 4.2 3B, NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B, gpt-oss-20b, Ling-3.0-flash-VL, MiMo-V2.6-Flash, GLM-5.3 Flash, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, MiMo-V2.6-Pro, Claude Sonnet 5.5, Claude Opus 5.5. 26 models are not plotted: Xing4.0-29B-A4B, Nex-N2.5-Pro, Atria Dawn Preview, Intern-S2-397B, Solar Open2 250B, Phi-4-reasoning-plus, Motif 3, Nex-N2-Pro, Nex-N2.5-Mini, A.X-K2, K2 Horizon 375B A23B, K-EXAONE 2.0 0803, K2 Horizon MoVA 36B A4B, Intern-S2-Preview (35B-A3B), Command A+, North Mini Code, G9v3-39A5B, Falcon-H1-34B-Instruct, Devstral 2, K2 Horizon 7B, Devstral Small 2, MiniCPM5-2B, Ling 3.0 Tiny, K2 Horizon 3.7B, K2 Horizon 0.9B, LFM2.5-2.6B.

26 models with no price data — shown in the strip at the left edge

Xing4.0-29B-A4B, Nex-N2.5-Pro, Atria Dawn Preview, Intern-S2-397B, Solar Open2 250B, Phi-4-reasoning-plus, Motif 3, Nex-N2-Pro, Nex-N2.5-Mini, A.X-K2, K2 Horizon 375B A23B, K-EXAONE 2.0 0803, K2 Horizon MoVA 36B A4B, Intern-S2-Preview (35B-A3B), Command A+, North Mini Code, G9v3-39A5B, Falcon-H1-34B-Instruct, Devstral 2, K2 Horizon 7B, Devstral Small 2, MiniCPM5-2B, Ling 3.0 Tiny, K2 Horizon 3.7B, K2 Horizon 0.9B, LFM2.5-2.6B

  • Best-value frontier (nothing is both cheaper and better)
  • Evidencestrong → weak
  • Estimated from other categories
  • Claude Opus 5.5
    Quality
    96.9
    Rank
    #1/103
    Price
    $8.00/M tok
    Speed
    92tok/s
    In$4.00▾Out$20▾/M tok

    vs Claude Opus 5: +13.6 quality · 0.8× price

  • Claude Opus 5
    Quality
    83.3
    Rank
    #5/103
    Price
    $10.0/M tok
    Speed
    54tok/s
    In$5.00Out$25/M tok

    vs Claude Opus 5.5: −13.6 quality · 1.3× price

Overview

Lab
Anthropic
Anthropic
Released
Sep 22, 2026
Jul 24, 2026
Weights
Proprietary
Proprietary
Input price
$/M tok
$4.00Best
$5.00
Output price
$/M tok
$20Best
$25
Blended price
$/M tok · 3:1 in:out
$8.00Best
$10
Output speed
tok/s
92Best
54
Context
tokens
1MBest
1MBest

Quality by category

0–100 within each category (100 = best tracked model). Rank is among all models ranked there. Click a row to focus it.

96.9±3.4Best
#1/103Mixedbest value
83.3±3.2
#5/103Mixed
93.0±4.3
#3/146Verifiedbest value
93.4±4.3Best
#2/146Verifiedbest value
94.5±4.8Best
#2/82Verifiedbest value
77.4±4.8
#9/82Verified
99.9±2.6Best
#1/182Verifiedbest value
91.7±3.7
#5/182Verified
99.6±4.1Best
#1/173Verifiedbest value
84.8±4.6
#8/173Mixed

Coding benchmarks

Rank among models with a published score, and the leaderboard around each model. ~ italic = no published score, estimated from related benchmarks.

Benchmarks in other categories (4)

Writing & chat benchmarks

Rank among models with a published score, and the leaderboard around each model. ~ italic = no published score, estimated from related benchmarks.

Vision benchmarks

Rank among models with a published score, and the leaderboard around each model. ~ italic = no published score, estimated from related benchmarks.

MMMU
day 0
~#2/3~71.3%Estimated
estimated from related benchmarks
~#2/3~71.3%Estimated
estimated from related benchmarks
~#2/9~86.1%Estimated
estimated from related benchmarks
~#2/9~84.9%Estimated
estimated from related benchmarks
~#2/8~91.4%Estimated
estimated from related benchmarks

Hard reasoning benchmarks

Rank among models with a published score, and the leaderboard around each model. ~ italic = no published score, estimated from related benchmarks.

Agents benchmarks

Rank among models with a published score, and the leaderboard around each model. ~ italic = no published score, estimated from related benchmarks.

~#2/116~98.3%Estimated
estimated from related benchmarks
~#2/116~98.3%Estimated
estimated from related benchmarks
~#2/12~84.6%Estimated
estimated from related benchmarks
~#3/12~84.0%Estimated
estimated from related benchmarks
~#2/5~58.7%Estimated
estimated from related benchmarks
Not comparable across labs (1)