Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026
In this head-to-head showdown, Claude Opus 4.6 delivers higher overall intelligence and human-preferred responses (Elo 1,574 vs 1,568), while Claude Opus 4.5 leads in SWE-bench software engineering benchmarks (76.8%), while Claude Opus 4.5 is more budget-friendly at $25/1M per 1M output tokens, while Claude Opus 4.6 provides faster response streaming (64 tok/s). Review the complete breakdown below to determine which model best fits your performance and budget requirements.
8 direct benchmark disciplines evaluated across capability, speed, and cost
Anthropic frontier coding and computer-use model. SWE-bench leader on the official mini-SWE-agent harness in the Feb 2026 refresh.
Follow-on Opus release. Slightly behind 4.5 on official SWE-bench bash-only in the last published sweep; stronger multi-step autonomous agent reasoning.
Currently comparing Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6. Alternative family tiers available.
Simulate accuracy gains vs added response time & token cost
Reasoning models “think before answering” by generating internal reasoning tokens. Higher effort improves math, coding, and logic accuracy, but increases response delay and token costs.
Δ 6 Arena Elo pts
64 tok/s
$25 / 1M output
Relative percentile scores computed across all active models in the benchmark catalog.
Comparing top Western standard models with China's leading frontier rival across 6 skill dimensions. Tap any spoke or dot to inspect.
Category wins across reasoning intelligence, generation speed, and token cost.
Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy
Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness
Cost per million tokens and max context window length
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Advantage Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preference Elo | +6 | ||
| Coding Elo | +4 | ||
| LiveBench | +0.8% | ||
| SWE-bench | +0.9% | ||
| GPQA Diamond | +0.7% | ||
| Time to first token | +20 ms | ||
| Output speed | 62 tok/s | 64 tok/s | +2 tok/s |
| Input price | — | ||
| Output price | — | ||
| Context window | +800k |
Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).
Higher SWE-bench (76.8%).
Lower output list price ($25/1M).
Lower TTFT (360 ms).
Larger window (1M).
Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.6).
| Target Workload | Recommended Pick | Evaluation Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Repo / coding agents | Claude Opus 4.5 | Higher SWE-bench (76.8%). |
| High-volume chat | Claude Opus 4.5 | Lower output list price ($25/1M). |
| Voice / low-latency UI | Claude Opus 4.6 | Lower TTFT (360 ms). |
| Long-document RAG | Claude Opus 4.6 | Larger window (1M). |
| Screenshots / vision | Claude Opus 4.6 | Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.6). |
Slightly behind 4.5 on one official SWE-bench sweep; stronger long-horizon traces. We keep the row for old vs URLs.
The Feb refresh made 4.5 a coding reference. Newer Opus SKUs exist; this row stays as the dated harness point.
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
Dynamic OpenGraph banner generated at /compare/claude-opus-4-5-vs-claude-opus-4-6/opengraph-image
Verified Head-to-Head Telemetry