Claude Opus 5.5 wins on coding (100 vs 98) and price ($4 vs $5/1M input). For most workflows, Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger default — anthropic's new coding default — top swe-bench pro score at a lower price than opus 5.
The safest Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5 default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Claude Opus 5.5 is the strongest answer here for Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5 — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $4.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 handles the same job for about 50% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.
Claude Opus 5 is the fastest of these for Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5 — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Claude Opus 5.5 leads on coding with a score of 100 vs 98 for Claude Opus 5.
Claude Opus 5.5 is cheaper at $4/1M input tokens vs $5/1M for Claude Opus 5.
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger default for coding tasks.
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 for agentic coding, long-running agents and knowledge work where Opus 5 was the bar. Its coding and research scores are what carry the recommendation here.
Switch to Claude Opus 5 when your work is mostly complex agentic coding and enterprise agent workflows; on that narrower brief it is the better tool.
Both models serve different primary workflows — Claude Opus 5.5 for agentic coding and long-running agents and knowledge work where Opus 5 was the bar, Claude Opus 5 for complex agentic coding and enterprise agent workflows — so running each where it has a clear edge often beats forcing one to do both.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5 answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
Anthropic / Premium / Oct 10, 2026
Anthropic's new coding default — top SWE-bench Pro score at a lower price than Opus 5.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
Your tasks are well-scoped and latency-sensitive — Sonnet 5.5 is half the price and Anthropic says it is the fastest Sonnet yet.
Where the Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5 recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Anthropic's new coding default — top SWE-bench Pro score at a lower price than Opus 5.
Strong premium coder, now replaced by the cheaper Opus 5.5.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | $4.00/1M | $20.00/1M | $80 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 100 | 97 | 99 |
| Claude Opus 5Anthropic | $5.00/1M | $25.00/1M | $100 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 98 | 96 | 98 |
Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.
Why each one is on the shortlist for Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Ranked first here for Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5: 100/100 on coding, with the widest margin of anything in this line-up.
Anthropic's September 22, 2026 Opus — a step up from Opus 5 on agentic coding, long-running agent work and vision, at a lower $4/$20 list price and with fewer tokens spent per finished task.
Your tasks are well-scoped and latency-sensitive — Sonnet 5.5 is half the price and Anthropic says it is the fastest Sonnet yet.
The new premium coding default from Anthropic. Opus 5.5 posts the highest SWE-bench Pro figure in any launch table we track and costs less than Opus 5 did. Fable 5.1 still makes sense for the hardest open-ended research at $10/$50; for almost everything else Opus 5.5 is the better buy, and Sonnet 5.5 at half the price is close behind on well-scoped work.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Opus 5.5 page.
The fastest model in this shortlist for Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5. Pick it when turnaround is what your readers or users notice.
Anthropic's flagship-tier Opus that comes close to Claude Fable 5's frontier intelligence at half the price — the new default for complex agentic coding and enterprise agents.
You need fast interactive latency (Sonnet 5 is quicker and one-fifth the price) or absolute frontier ceiling (Fable 5).
Superseded: Claude Opus 5.5 (September 22, 2026) scores higher on SWE-bench Pro and costs less at $4/$20. At launch, Opus 5 took the SWE-bench Verified lead from Opus 4.8 at the same $5/$25 price, and gets within half a point of Fable 5 on agentic coding at half the cost. Choose Fable 5 only when absolute frontier intelligence matters more than budget.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Opus 5 page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5 pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Claude Opus 5.5 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, research, reasoning — so it is the better default of the two. Claude Opus 5 is the better pick when your work is mostly complex agentic coding and enterprise agent workflows. Neither is universally "better": Claude Opus 5.5 is aimed at agentic coding and long-running agents and knowledge work where Opus 5 was the bar, Claude Opus 5 at complex agentic coding and enterprise agent workflows.
Claude Opus 5.5 is cheaper at $4/1M input and $20/1M output. Claude Opus 5 costs $5/1M input and $25/1M output.
Both Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Opus 5 have the same 1M context window.
Claude Opus 5.5 is better for coding with a score of 100 vs Claude Opus 5's 98 (out of 100). Claude Opus 5.5 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Both Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Opus 5 have similar speed profiles — rated deliberate. Neither will be the bottleneck if latency is your deciding factor.
Not ahead everywhere: Anthropic's own table has Opus 5 higher on Toolathlon Verified (80.6% vs 77.8%). Fast mode doubles the price to $8/$40. Terminal-Bench 4.0 differs by effort setting (66.4% at xhigh, 64.8% at max), so single-digit gaps against rivals are directional. Avoid it if your tasks are well-scoped and latency-sensitive — Sonnet 5.5 is half the price and Anthropic says it is the fastest Sonnet yet. That is the main case for looking at Claude Opus 5 instead.
Still short of Claude Fable 5's absolute frontier ceiling on the hardest long-running agent tasks. Fast mode (research preview) doubles pricing to $10/$50, erasing the cost advantage over Fable 5. Avoid it if you need fast interactive latency (Sonnet 5 is quicker and one-fifth the price) or absolute frontier ceiling (Fable 5). Against Claude Opus 5.5 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (100 vs 98).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. Claude Opus 5.5 runs $80.00 (at $4/1M in and $20/1M out); Claude Opus 5 runs $100.00 (at $5/1M in and $25/1M out). That is a $20.00/month difference — Claude Opus 5.5 is the cheaper of the two at this volume, and the gap scales linearly as you send more. Output tokens dominate the bill on both, so prompt length matters far less than response length.
Yes, and for most teams that beats picking one. A common split is Claude Opus 5.5 for agentic coding and long-running agents and knowledge work where Opus 5 was the bar, with Claude Opus 5 handling complex agentic coding and enterprise agent workflows. Since Claude Opus 5.5 is both the stronger and the cheaper option here, a split mainly makes sense if Claude Opus 5 covers a capability you specifically need.