Claude Opus 5

Made by Anthropic, released 24 Jul 2026. Epoch AI lists its access as “API access”. Appears strongest at coding, maths and writing among the models listed here.

Popular comparisons: Gemini 4 Argon · Claude Opus 5.5

Find my AI Compare with another model

In short

What it does well

  • Coding: Top tier (4th of 77 listed models)
  • Maths: Top tier (11th of 43 listed models)
  • Writing: Top tier (5th of 77 listed models)
  • Knowledge: Strong (15th of 43 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

  • Fixing real software bugs: 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
Top tierHow often people preferred its answers to writing prompts. 1,495 on Arena's scale · Source for Claude Opus 5 writing score (lmarena)
Coding
Top tierHow often people preferred its answers to coding questions. 1,532 on Arena's scale · Source for Claude Opus 5 coding score (lmarena)
Maths
Top tierHow many very hard maths problems it solved. 85.6% · Source for Claude Opus 5 maths score (epoch)
Knowledge
StrongHow many short factual questions it answered correctly. 59.9% · Source for Claude Opus 5 knowledge score (epoch)

Evidence completeness: Broad evidence, 12 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

No category stands out as clearly stronger than its overall position.

Relatively weaker

No category stands out as clearly weaker than its overall position.

Show every category we can see
Position in each Arena category
CategoryPositionArena scoreVotesSource
Expert-level prompts
Kind of request
1st of 771,551
95% range 1,541 to 1,562
3,754Source for Expert-level prompts
Hard prompts
Kind of request
4th of 771,526
95% range 1,521 to 1,532
22,863Source for Hard prompts
Long prompts
Kind of request
5th of 771,517
95% range 1,511 to 1,523
16,567Source for Long prompts
Longer conversations
Kind of request
8th of 771,499
95% range 1,490 to 1,508
5,344Source for Longer conversations
Chinese
Language
4th of 761,575
95% range 1,563 to 1,587
2,831Source for Chinese
English prompts
Language
5th of 771,508
95% range 1,502 to 1,514
14,250Source for English prompts
French
Language
10th of 721,501
95% range 1,482 to 1,520
1,151Source for French
German
Language
1st of 551,527
95% range 1,502 to 1,552
616Source for German
Japanese
Language
2nd of 541,521
95% range 1,495 to 1,547
640Source for Japanese
Korean
Language
1st of 541,516
95% range 1,493 to 1,540
688Source for Korean
Non-English prompts
Language
4th of 771,502
95% range 1,496 to 1,507
21,274Source for Non-English prompts
Russian
Language
7th of 771,507
95% range 1,498 to 1,517
4,336Source for Russian
Spanish
Language
1st of 701,520
95% range 1,501 to 1,539
1,064Source for Spanish
Entertainment, sport and media
Topic
8th of 771,481
95% range 1,474 to 1,489
9,498Source for Entertainment, sport and media
Law and government
Topic
2nd of 761,528
95% range 1,517 to 1,540
3,033Source for Law and government
Medicine and health
Topic
3rd of 751,526
95% range 1,514 to 1,539
2,675Source for Medicine and health
Science
Topic
3rd of 771,532
95% range 1,524 to 1,541
5,922Source for Science
Software and IT
Topic
5th of 771,527
95% range 1,520 to 1,533
12,834Source 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
Release date (Epoch AI)
24 Jul 2026
Access, as listed by Epoch AI
API access
Licence, as listed by Arena
Proprietary
Maker's country (Epoch AI)
United States of America
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. Epoch AI lists access as “API access”. 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 5. 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)
1,508
Arena score
95% range 1,503 to 1,513, 35,531 votes
Top tier effort: Max, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 5 (Max)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 5 Arena text: overall preference score (lmarena)
Arena text: creative writing
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category creative_writing
1,495
Arena score
95% range 1,487 to 1,503, 8,071 votes
Top tier effort: Max, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 5 (Max)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 5 Arena text: creative writing score (lmarena)
Arena text: coding
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category coding
1,532
Arena score
95% range 1,525 to 1,539, 8,837 votes
Top tier effort: Max, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 5 (Max)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 5 Arena text: coding score (lmarena)
Arena text: maths
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category math
1,531
Arena score
95% range 1,516 to 1,545, 1,708 votes
Top tier effort: Max, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 5 (Max)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 5 Arena text: maths score (lmarena)
Arena text: following instructions
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category instruction_following
1,518
Arena score
95% range 1,511 to 1,525, 12,334 votes
Top tier effort: Max, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 5 (Max)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 5 Arena text: following instructions score (lmarena)
Arena text: business and management
Arena 'text' leaderboard, category industry_business_and_management_and_financial_operations
1,500
Arena score
95% range 1,492 to 1,508, 6,569 votes
Top tier effort: Max, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 5 (Max)
lmarena · text/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 5 Arena text: business and management score (lmarena)
Arena WebDev: building web apps
Arena 'webdev' leaderboard (Code Arena), category overall
1,691
Arena score
95% range 1,684 to 1,697, 19,641 votes
Top tier effort: Max, bradley-terry rating Claude Opus 5 (Max)
lmarena · webdev/latest
28 Oct 2026 Source for Claude Opus 5 Arena WebDev: building web apps score (lmarena)
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (private set), benchmark released 2026-06-12
85.6%
share of problems solved
standard error ±2.1 points
Top tier effort: max, best score across scorers claude-opus-5_max
epoch · frontiermath_tiers_1_3_v2.csv
24 Jul 2026 Source for Claude Opus 5 FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) score (epoch) · Run details for FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025, benchmark released 2024-12-19
98.9%
share of problems solved
standard error ±1.1 points
Strong effort: max, best score across scorers claude-opus-5_max
epoch · otis_mock_aime_2024_2025.csv
24 Jul 2026 Source for Claude Opus 5 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 score (epoch)
No public run log in the data file.
GPQA Diamond
GPQA Diamond, benchmark released 2023-11-20
93.9%
share of questions correct
standard error ±1.5 points
Top tier effort: max, best score across scorers claude-opus-5_max
epoch · gpqa_diamond.csv
24 Jul 2026 Source for Claude Opus 5 GPQA Diamond score (epoch)
No public run log in the data file.
SimpleQA Verified
SimpleQA Verified, benchmark released 2025-09-09
59.9%
share of questions correct
standard error ±1.6 points
Strong effort: max, best score across scorers claude-opus-5_max
epoch · simpleqa_verified.csv
10 Aug 2026 Source for Claude Opus 5 SimpleQA Verified score (epoch)
No public run log in the data file.
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch runs)Not enough data
FrontierCode (reported by Cognition)
FrontierCode, benchmark released 2026-06-08, aggregation Mean@5
53.4%
mean score over 5 attempts
no uncertainty figure published
Not rated (results use different tools) effort: medium, tool: claude-code, mean@5 claude-opus-5_max
epoch · frontiercode_external.csv
not provided Source for Claude Opus 5 FrontierCode (reported by Cognition) score (epoch) · Run details for FrontierCode (reported by Cognition)

Missing evidence

Not enough data for these tests:

  • SWE-bench Verified (Epoch runs)

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