Compare AI models: Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Opus 4.6AnthropicHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
- Claude Opus 5.5AnthropicHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
ReasoningCodingCost efficiencyContext windowMultimodalTool use
| Model | Reasoning | Coding | Cost efficiency | Context window | Multimodal | Tool use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.6 | 50/100 — Reasoning supported; no comparable benchmark | 76/100 | 6/100 | 81/100 | 50/100 | 55/100 |
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 100/100 | 75/100 | 8/100 | 81/100 | 50/100 | 50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark |
Overview
Author
Context length
1M
1M
Reasoning
True
True
Input modalities
Text, Image, Pdf
Text, Image, Pdf
Output modalities
Text
Text
Providers
Pricing
Input
$5.00/ 1M
$4.00/ 1M
Output
$25/ 1M
$20/ 1M
Cached input
$0.50/ 1M
$0.20/ 1M
MomentumLast 2 mo
Unique users
0
No usage
Completed sessions
2
No usage
Token share
0%
No usage
Tokens
00%
No usage
No trend data
No trend data
RetentionWeek 1
Returning users
Pending
Pending
Related comparisons. Other model pairs to check.
Nearby alternativeClaude Opus 4.6 vs Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructClaude Opus 4.6·Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructNearby alternativeClaude Opus 5.5 vs Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructClaude Opus 5.5·Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructRelated comparisonClaude Opus 4.6 vs Jamba MiniClaude Opus 4.6·Jamba MiniRelated comparisonClaude Opus 5.5 vs Jamba MiniClaude Opus 5.5·Jamba Mini