Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic/claude-4.6-opus-20260205

Claude Opus 4.6 is an Anthropic model released on 2026‑02‑05. It accepts text, image, and file inputs, produces text output, and supports tools and reasoning with a context length of 1,000,000 tokens. The model is not open‑weight and is priced at $5 per M input tokens and $25 per M output tokens.

  • tool use
  • structured outputs
  • reasoning

At a glance

provideranthropic
releasedAug 26, 2025
context1M
input / M$5

Specifications

What the API gives you

Context window
1M tokens
Max output
128K tokens
Input price
$5 / 1M tokens
Output price
$25 / 1M tokens
Cache read
$0.50 / 1M tokens
Modalities
text, image, file → text
Knowledge cutoff
—
Released
Aug 26, 2025

Measured evidence

Public benchmark record

Design Arena Coding
1285 Elo2026-10-21
Design Arena Full-stack Agent
1220 Elo2026-10-14
Design Arena UI
1280 Elo2026-10-21
Design Arena Web-app Agent
1206 Elo2026-10-21
Design Arena Website
1286 Elo2026-10-21
FACTS Grounding
54.9%2026-10-21
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (Epoch AI)‡
66% ± 2.82026-06-11max effort, evaluated 2026-06-11
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI)‡
88.4% ± 2.32026-08-06max effort, evaluated 2026-08-06
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI)
90.5% ± 1.72026-02-06evaluated 2026-02-06
LiveBench Agentic Coding
49.0%2026-10-18
LiveBench Coding
78.2%2026-10-18
LiveBench Data Analysis
69.9%2026-10-18
LiveBench Instruction Following
63.3%2026-10-18
LiveBench Language
83.3%2026-10-18
LiveBench Math
89.3%2026-10-18
LiveBench Reasoning
88.7%2026-10-18
LMArena Creative Writing‡
1505 Elo2026-10-20high effort
LMArena Instruction Following‡
1521 Elo2026-10-20high effort
LMArena Long Query‡
1518 Elo2026-10-20high effort
LMArena Math‡
1518 Elo2026-10-20high effort
LMArena Text‡
1503 Elo2026-10-20high effort
LMArena Text Factuality‡
1492 Elo2026-10-20high effort
LMArena Vision‡
1299 Elo2026-10-19high effort
LMArena Vision Diagrams‡
1324 Elo2026-10-19high effort
LMArena Vision OCR‡
1314 Elo2026-10-19high effort
LMArena WebDev‡
1547 Elo2026-10-19high effort
LMArena WebDev Image-to-Web‡
1543 Elo2026-10-19high effort
OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch AI)‡
91.1% ± 4.32026-08-06max effort, evaluated 2026-08-06
OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch AI)
93.1% ± 3.32026-02-06evaluated 2026-02-06
SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI)‡
47% ± 1.62026-08-27max effort, evaluated 2026-08-27
SWE-bench Verified (verified-500)‡
75.6%2026-10-21mini-SWE-agent 2.0.0, evaluated 2026-02-17
tau2-bench (1.0.1)‡
27.3%2026-05-06max effort, evaluated 2026-05-06

LMArena data licensed CC-BY-4.0. Aider (Apache-2.0) and SWE-bench (MIT) are open. Design Arena uses blind human preference. ‡ Submitted scaffold plus model result. Compare the harness and effort settings, not only the model name.

Task evidence

How broad is the support?

Each status is exact to this model version and the selected task. Official release claims remain provisional.

  • Best LLM for Competition MathEstablished evidence

    100% of intended weighted task evidence across 4 independent sources. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Business WritingEstablished evidence

    100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Logic & Problem SolvingEstablished evidence

    100% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 5 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Marketing CopyEstablished evidence

    100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Chat & RoleplayEstablished evidence

    100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Creative WritingEstablished evidence

    100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

Show all 40 tasks
  • Best LLM for Frontend & UIEstablished evidence

    100% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for WritingEstablished evidence

    100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Roleplay & CharacterEstablished evidence

    100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Math & ReasoningEstablished evidence

    100% of intended weighted task evidence across 5 independent sources. 7 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for a General AssistantEstablished evidence

    100% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Document SummarizationEstablished evidence

    85% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 5 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for SummarizationEstablished evidence

    85% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 5 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Code CompletionEstablished evidence

    79% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best Open-Weight LLM for Self-HostingEstablished evidence

    64% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Grounded RAGEstablished evidence

    62% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 5 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Image UnderstandingEstablished evidence

    61% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for RAG & Long ContextEstablished evidence

    61% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 5 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for CodingEstablished evidence

    60% of intended weighted task evidence across 4 independent sources. 7 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Fast SummariesEstablished evidence

    58% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best Value LLMEstablished evidence

    58% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Literary TranslationEstablished evidence

    50% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Everyday TranslationEstablished evidence

    50% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for TranslationEstablished evidence

    50% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best Local LLM for CodingEstablished evidence

    47% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Debugging & Code ReviewEstablished evidence

    44% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 5 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best Cheap LLM for High VolumeEstablished evidence

    40% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Cheapest Capable LLMEstablished evidence

    40% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Agentic CodingEstablished evidence

    36% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 7 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for JSON & Schema OutputEstablished evidence

    35% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Structured Data ExtractionEstablished evidence

    35% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for AI AgentsEstablished evidence

    18% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 9 of 9 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for OCR & DocumentsProvisional evidence

    65% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 3 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Charts & DiagramsProvisional evidence

    65% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 3 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Vision & DocumentsProvisional evidence

    60% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 4 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Document ParsingProvisional evidence

    58% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 3 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Massive ContextProvisional evidence

    47% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from LongBench v2. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for High-Volume ExtractionProvisional evidence

    21% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Route reliability or Structured-output eval. 1 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Tool & Function CallingProvisional evidence

    21% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Berkeley Function Calling or LMArena Agent. 6 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

  • Best LLM for Autonomous AgentsProvisional evidence

    13% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from LMArena Agent or LMArena Agent Task Outcome. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.

Recommendation coverage

Where this model appears

Not currently included in a published recommendation. The task evidence panel above says exactly what is confirmed and what is still missing.

Catalog data via OpenRouter and models.dev. Last checked within the past 6 hours.