| Signal | Claude Opus 4.5 | Delta | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 86 | -1 | |
Pricing | 25 | -- | |
Context window size | 84 | -11 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 80 | -5 | |
| Overall Result | 0 wins | of 6 | 3 wins |
6
days higher
0
days
24
days higher
Anthropic
Anthropic
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 87 | 88 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Rank | #13 | #11 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Quality Rank | #13 | #11 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Adoption Rank | #13 | #11 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 200K | 1000K | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Pricing | $5.00/$25.00/M | $5.00/$25.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.5 |
| Benchmarks | 86 | 87 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Pricing | 25 | 25 | Claude Opus 4.5 |
| Context window size | 84 | 95 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.5 |
| Output Capacity | 80 | 85 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 87/100 (rank #13), placing it in the top 96% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 88/100 (rank #11), placing it in the top 97% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 1-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Claude Opus 4.5 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($25.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (88/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Claude Opus 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.6 are extremely close in overall performance (only 1.1000000000000085 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Claude Opus 4.5
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Claude Opus 4.5
0% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Claude Opus 4.5
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Claude Opus 4.5
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Claude Opus 4.5
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Anthropic
| Capability | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Anthropic
Anthropic
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 200K | 1M |
| Max Output Tokens | 64,000 | 128,000 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Nov 24, 2025 | Feb 4, 2026 |
Claude Opus 4.6 scores 88/100 (rank #11) compared to Claude Opus 4.5's 87/100 (rank #13), giving it a 1-point advantage. Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger overall choice, though Claude Opus 4.5 may excel in specific areas like certain benchmarks.
Claude Opus 4.5 is ranked #13 and Claude Opus 4.6 is ranked #11 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Claude Opus 4.5 is cheaper at $25.00/M output tokens vs Claude Opus 4.6's $25.00/M output tokens - 1.0x more expensive. Input token pricing: Claude Opus 4.5 at $5.00/M vs Claude Opus 4.6 at $5.00/M.
Claude Opus 4.6 has a larger context window of 1,000,000 tokens compared to Claude Opus 4.5's 200,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.