Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101)

Made by Anthropic. Epoch AI does not state how it can be accessed. Appears solid at coding and writing among the models listed here.

Find my AI Compare with another model

In short

What it does well

  • Coding: Strong (21st of 77 listed models)
  • Writing: Strong (32nd of 77 listed models)

Where it falls short

The four main ratings show no weakness. That is not evidence it has none.

What we don't know yet

  • Hard maths problems: Not enough data
  • School-competition maths: Not enough data
  • Graduate-level science questions: Not enough data
  • Short factual questions: Not enough data
  • Fixing real software bugs: Not enough data
  • Difficult coding tasks: Not enough data

The four ratings

  • Top tier
  • Strong
  • Middle
  • Behind the leaders
  • Not enough data

Ratings compare only the 77 models listed here, in quarters, best first. “Not enough data” means no result yet. It is never a low score.

Writing
StrongHow often people preferred its answers to writing prompts. 1,443 on Arena's scale · Source for Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101) writing score (lmarena)
Coding
StrongHow often people preferred its answers to coding questions. 1,498 on Arena's scale · Source for Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101) coding score (lmarena)
Maths
Not enough dataNo result yet for hard maths problems.
Knowledge
Not enough dataNo result yet for short factual questions.

Evidence completeness: Partial evidence, 7 of 13 tests have a result.

Where it is relatively stronger or weaker

This compares each kind of request with the model's own overall position among the 77 listed models, using Arena's votes. It is about performance on different languages, kinds of request and topics, not about political or social bias.

Relatively stronger

Relatively weaker

  • Chinese: 66th of 76 on questions asked in Chinese, against 44th of 77 overall. Source for Chinese
Show every category we can see
Position in each Arena category
CategoryPositionArena scoreVotesSource
Expert-level prompts
Kind of request
38th of 771,487
95% range 1,479 to 1,495
5,683Source for Expert-level prompts
Hard prompts
Kind of request
35th of 771,476
95% range 1,472 to 1,480
43,203Source for Hard prompts
Long prompts
Kind of request
26th of 771,479
95% range 1,474 to 1,484
24,213Source for Long prompts
Longer conversations
Kind of request
35th of 771,466
95% range 1,460 to 1,472
12,956Source for Longer conversations
Chinese
Language
66th of 761,470
95% range 1,461 to 1,478
5,395Source for Chinese
English prompts
Language
38th of 771,461
95% range 1,456 to 1,465
31,197Source for English prompts
French
Language
40th of 721,472
95% range 1,457 to 1,486
2,021Source for French
German
Language
38th of 551,449
95% range 1,431 to 1,468
1,134Source for German
Japanese
Language
41st of 541,411
95% range 1,387 to 1,436
639Source for Japanese
Korean
Language
30th of 541,424
95% range 1,406 to 1,442
1,170Source for Korean
Non-English prompts
Language
47th of 771,438
95% range 1,434 to 1,441
41,624Source for Non-English prompts
Russian
Language
51st of 771,447
95% range 1,440 to 1,454
9,041Source for Russian
Spanish
Language
42nd of 701,452
95% range 1,439 to 1,466
2,165Source for Spanish
Entertainment, sport and media
Topic
38th of 771,434
95% range 1,428 to 1,440
14,064Source for Entertainment, sport and media
Law and government
Topic
45th of 761,459
95% range 1,451 to 1,468
5,428Source for Law and government
Medicine and health
Topic
57th of 751,443
95% range 1,434 to 1,452
4,912Source for Medicine and health
Science
Topic
57th of 771,454
95% range 1,448 to 1,460
11,575Source for Science
Software and IT
Topic
39th of 771,483
95% range 1,478 to 1,487
26,861Source for Software and IT

Bias: what we can and can't see

Our sources do not measure political lean, stereotyping, flattery (agreeing with you too readily) or safety behaviour, so we cannot say how any model does on those. What we can show is above: where a model is relatively stronger or weaker across languages, kinds of request and topics. Also, people voting in Arena can favour answer style, such as length and formatting, and our numbers do not adjust for that. See what AI bias means and what these tests can tell you.

Best-supported use cases

Where an alternative might be more suitable

What it is

Maker
Anthropic
Access, as listed by Epoch AI
Not stated
Licence, as listed by Arena
Proprietary
Last observation in our data
28 Oct 2026
Data last changed
29 Oct 2026, 14:36 UTC

We have not verified an official product page for this model, so we do not link to one.

How you can use it

Proprietary. The model's files are not published, so it is generally available only through its maker or partners the maker chooses.

How you can reach it (an app, a website, a developer API or a third-party tool) and what that costs are not covered by our benchmark data. Where we could verify prices from the maker's own pages, they are shown under Price. See models, apps and harnesses and how AI pricing works.

Price

Price not independently verified

What Anthropic's own page says about the Opus family (USD ($ as shown; the page does not state a currency code); checked 28 Oct 2026)

  • Free ($0): Opus not available
  • Pro ($20 per month billed monthly, or $17 per month billed annually ($200 up front)): Opus available
  • Max (From $100 per month): Opus available

The page marks plans against model families, not versions, so it does not say which version of a family a plan includes. Check that before relying on it.

See Claude plans and pricing (checked 28 Oct 2026). Page opened and read.

We never infer subscription prices from API prices. New to “tokens” and “per million”? See how AI pricing works.

Good to remember

  • Benchmarks are samples of tasks. None proves performance in every situation.
  • Arena scores come from people choosing between answers. That measures preference, not correctness.
  • Ratings are relative to the 77 models listed here. A different set would change them.
  • Sources test models at different settings. Each result shows the setting used, and we do not adjust it.

The evidence, for the curious

Show all 13 tests with settings and sources
All published results for Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101). Ratings compare only the 77 models on this site.
TestResultRatingSetting usedSource identifierObservedLinks
Arena text: overall preference
Arena 'text' leaderboard (Bradley-Terry rating, no style control)
1,451
Arena score
95% range 1,448 to 1,454, 72,825 votes
Middle effort: 20251101, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101) Arena text: overall preference score (lmarena)
Arena text: creative writing
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category creative_writing
1,443
Arena score
95% range 1,436 to 1,449, 11,394 votes
Strong effort: 20251101, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101) Arena text: creative writing score (lmarena)
Arena text: coding
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category coding
1,498
Arena score
95% range 1,493 to 1,504, 17,954 votes
Strong effort: 20251101, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101) Arena text: coding score (lmarena)
Arena text: maths
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category math
1,458
Arena score
95% range 1,449 to 1,467, 4,547 votes
Middle effort: 20251101, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101) Arena text: maths score (lmarena)
Arena text: following instructions
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category instruction_following
1,472
Arena score
95% range 1,467 to 1,477, 21,809 votes
Strong effort: 20251101, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101) Arena text: following instructions score (lmarena)
Arena text: business and management
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category industry_business_and_management_and_financial_operations
1,448
Arena score
95% range 1,442 to 1,454, 14,091 votes
Strong effort: 20251101, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101) Arena text: business and management score (lmarena)
Arena WebDev: building web apps
Arena 'webdev' leaderboard (Code Arena), category overall
1,469
Arena score
95% range 1,462 to 1,476, 13,362 votes
Middle effort: 20251101, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101)
lmarena · webdev/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 4.5 (20251101) Arena WebDev: building web apps score (lmarena)
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Not enough data
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025Not enough data
GPQA DiamondNot enough data
SimpleQA VerifiedNot enough data
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch runs)Not enough data
FrontierCode (reported by Cognition)Not enough data

Missing evidence

Not enough data for these tests:

  • FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
  • OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  • GPQA Diamond
  • SimpleQA Verified
  • SWE-bench Verified (Epoch runs)
  • FrontierCode (reported by Cognition)

Missing results are not low scores and do not count against the model.

Where a source gives no public run log, we cannot show the run behind the score. See data sources.

Not sure this is the right one?

Tell us what you need help with and we'll narrow the options down.

Find my AI