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.
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
- Long prompts: 26th of 77 on long, detailed prompts, against 44th of 77 overall. Source for Long prompts
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
| Category | Position | Arena score | Votes | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expert-level prompts Kind of request | 38th of 77 | 1,487 95% range 1,479 to 1,495 | 5,683 | Source for Expert-level prompts |
| Hard prompts Kind of request | 35th of 77 | 1,476 95% range 1,472 to 1,480 | 43,203 | Source for Hard prompts |
| Long prompts Kind of request | 26th of 77 | 1,479 95% range 1,474 to 1,484 | 24,213 | Source for Long prompts |
| Longer conversations Kind of request | 35th of 77 | 1,466 95% range 1,460 to 1,472 | 12,956 | Source for Longer conversations |
| Chinese Language | 66th of 76 | 1,470 95% range 1,461 to 1,478 | 5,395 | Source for Chinese |
| English prompts Language | 38th of 77 | 1,461 95% range 1,456 to 1,465 | 31,197 | Source for English prompts |
| French Language | 40th of 72 | 1,472 95% range 1,457 to 1,486 | 2,021 | Source for French |
| German Language | 38th of 55 | 1,449 95% range 1,431 to 1,468 | 1,134 | Source for German |
| Japanese Language | 41st of 54 | 1,411 95% range 1,387 to 1,436 | 639 | Source for Japanese |
| Korean Language | 30th of 54 | 1,424 95% range 1,406 to 1,442 | 1,170 | Source for Korean |
| Non-English prompts Language | 47th of 77 | 1,438 95% range 1,434 to 1,441 | 41,624 | Source for Non-English prompts |
| Russian Language | 51st of 77 | 1,447 95% range 1,440 to 1,454 | 9,041 | Source for Russian |
| Spanish Language | 42nd of 70 | 1,452 95% range 1,439 to 1,466 | 2,165 | Source for Spanish |
| Entertainment, sport and media Topic | 38th of 77 | 1,434 95% range 1,428 to 1,440 | 14,064 | Source for Entertainment, sport and media |
| Law and government Topic | 45th of 76 | 1,459 95% range 1,451 to 1,468 | 5,428 | Source for Law and government |
| Medicine and health Topic | 57th of 75 | 1,443 95% range 1,434 to 1,452 | 4,912 | Source for Medicine and health |
| Science Topic | 57th of 77 | 1,454 95% range 1,448 to 1,460 | 11,575 | Source for Science |
| Software and IT Topic | 39th of 77 | 1,483 95% range 1,478 to 1,487 | 26,861 | Source 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
- Homework and maths: not ranked, because there is not enough data for the main test.
- Research and checking facts: not ranked, because there is not enough data for the main test.
Where an alternative might be more suitable
- Writing and creating content: rated Strong on writing votes. Compare it with Claude Opus 5.5, the best-supported choice for this task.
- Coding and building things: rated Strong on coding votes. Compare it with Claude Opus 5.5, the best-supported choice for this task.
- Homework and maths: no result on hard maths problems, so we cannot say. See which models the evidence does support.
- Business emails and everyday work: rated Strong on business-task votes. Compare it with Gemini 4 Argon, the best-supported choice for this task.
- Research and checking facts: no result on short factual questions, so we cannot say. See which models the evidence does support.
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
| Test | Result | Rating | Setting used | Source identifier | Observed | Links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 2024-2025 | Not enough data | |||||
| GPQA Diamond | Not enough data | |||||
| SimpleQA Verified | Not 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.