All models

AnthropicUnited States· released Feb 2026

Claude Opus 4.6

Best published result on 3 of the 22 tests it has taken.

Anthropic, United States. One of 12 models from this lab on the Index.

Third-party publishedHigh confidence (12+ comparable tests, all 4 Index categories)
Theo

Available in Theo as Theo Think

Theo orchestrates it for the steps it does best and always shows which engine answered.

Use it in Theo

Snapshot September 8, 2026

OpenCharts Index

75.4

Ranked #11 (10 to 16) of 36 · 24.6% behind the frontier on average · 22 comparable tests · 4 counting categories

Drop any single test and the Index lands between 72.6 and 78.4, anywhere from #10 to #16. Neighbours inside that range are ties.

75.4HARD SET

7 of 8 hardest tests · share of the frontier

Distance to today's frontier on the hardest tests. Not a measure of intelligence.

What it's known for

Claude Opus 4.6, in 22 results.

Strongest in agentic (91.1) and reasoning (83.5). It holds the best published result on Cybench, DeepResearch Bench and METR Time Horizon. It trails the frontier most in math, 39.4% behind on average. No comparable result yet in long context. Between 20% and 25% behind the best published results, on average. Drop any single test and it would sit anywhere from #10 to #16.

Strongest category

Agentic

Long-horizon tasks with tools: terminals, desktops, browsers, whole jobs.

91.1

Mean of 6 of the category's 8 comparable tests. Counts toward the Index.

Best single result

Cybench

Solve professional capture-the-flag security challenges without guidance.

93.0%

Best published result of 7 models.

Offensive security work demands systematic investigation and tool use under uncertainty.

Where it trails

FrontierMath Tier 4

Solve the hardest FrontierMath tier: problems that take expert mathematicians days.

26.8%

72.5% behind the best published result (97.6%) · #25 of 51.

The deepest end of the set. Progress here signals genuinely new capability.

Not measured yet

No comparable result yet in this category. A blank is a blank, never a zero, and it does not lower the Index.

  • Long context

Covered, but not averaged into the Index:

  • Knowledgesingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 62.2
  • Multimodalsingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 95.9
  • Human preferencesingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 99.3
Every score, with its source

See it at work

What Claude Opus 4.6 was asked to do, and how it did.

Every test it has taken, by category, with the kind of task it faced, who produced the number and where the result landed against the best published one. The examples are original and illustrative, never items from the datasets themselves.

Human preference · mean 99.3 across 1 comparable test · a single-test category, shown beside the Index and never averaged into it

Text ArenaLeaderboard

Answer the same prompt as a rival model; real users vote blind on which answer they prefer.

1,505

50% expected win rate against the board leader (1,507)
#2 of 92

high · board 2026-09-02

Source: Arena

Every result is read against the best published one on its test: percent scores as a share of the best above chance, Arena ratings as the expected win rate against the board leader, open-ended values on a log scale. Sitting a harder exam never lowers a model. Every number links to the publisher that produced it.

Head to head

Claude Opus 4.6 against whoever you pick.

Choose a rival. Every counted test both have taken appears side by side as a share of the best published result on that test, with the category means above. A win is a higher share; a gap under 2 points is a tie, because one item on a 45-problem exam is 2.2 points and publishers' own standard errors are of that order.

Claude Opus 4.6

#11·Index 75.4B

0 : 12

wins · 0 ties · 12 shared

GPT-6 Astra

#1·Index 99.0A+

GPT-6 Astra comes out ahead on 12 of the 12 tests both have taken.

Category means

  • Reasoning

    83.5
    99.6
  • Knowledge

    62.2
    100.0
  • Coding

    66.6
    97.7
  • Math

    60.6
    99.8
  • Agentic

    91.1
    98.5
  • Multimodal

    95.9
  • Human preference

    99.3

Shared tests · biggest gaps first

Bars are distances to the best published result on each test (percent scores above chance, Arena ratings as win rate against the leader, open-ended values on a log scale). Raw values as the publishers report them.

Open GPT-6 Astra

Scores

Every test, every source

The best published run per benchmark, the raw value as the publisher reports it, who produced the number, how close it comes to the best published result on that test, and where the model sits among every model scored on it. Percent scores are read above chance, Arena ratings as a win rate against the board leader, open-ended values on a log scale. A test with too few models to compare against is shown but not counted.

Category means

  • Reasoning83.5 · 5/6
  • Knowledgebeside62.2 · 1/1
  • Coding66.6 · 4/7
  • Math60.6 · 4/5
  • Agentic91.1 · 6/8
  • Multimodalbeside95.9 · 1/1
  • Human preferencebeside99.3 · 1/1
  • Long context

Mean · tests taken of the category's comparable tests. A faded category either rests on fewer than half of them or is a single-test category (marked “beside”), which is shown next to the Index and never averaged into it.

GPQA DiamondEpoch-runReasoning

90.5%

92.6% of the best (95.8%), above chance
65th percentile of 78 · n = 198

32k

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
Humanity's Last ExamLeaderboardReasoning

34.4%

74.1% of the best (46.5%)
59th percentile of 18 · n = 2,500

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
ARC-AGI-2LeaderboardReasoning

69.2%

72.8% of the best (95.0%)
68th percentile of 51 · n = 120

120k

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
ARC-AGI-1LeaderboardReasoning

94.0%

95.4% of the best (98.5%)
74th percentile of 51 · n = 100

120k

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
SimpleBenchLeaderboardReasoning

67.6%

82.5% of the best (81.9%)
71th percentile of 46

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch-runKnowledge

47.0%

62.2% of the best (75.6%)
57th percentile of 57 · n = 1,000

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
SWE-bench VerifiedEpoch-runCoding

78.7%

94.3% of the best (83.5%)
88th percentile of 26 · n = 500

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
WeirdMLLeaderboardCoding

78.0%

83.9% of the best (92.9%)
84th percentile of 69

high

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
FrontierCodeLeaderboardCoding

26.6%

49.8% of the best (53.5%)
31th percentile of 27

harness: claude-code · reasoning effort: high

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
Code Arena (WebDev)LeaderboardCoding

1,546

19% expected win rate against the board leader (1,797)
75th percentile of 86

high · board 2026-09-05

Source: Arena (LMArena) — Leaderboard Dataset

94.4%

94.4% of the best (100.0%)
68th percentile of 78 · n = 45

64k

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub

66.0%

70.4% of the best (93.7%)
67th percentile of 61 · n = 290

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch-runMath

26.8%

27.5% of the best (97.6%)
46th percentile of 51 · n = 48

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
ProofBenchLeaderboardMath

50.0%

50.0% of the best (100.0%)
70th percentile of 61

max · reasoning effort: max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
Terminal-BenchLeaderboardAgentic

79.8%

94.2% of the best (84.7%)
90th percentile of 40

agent: ForgeCode

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
METR Time HorizonLeaderboardAgentic

12.0 h

94.6% of the best (17.4 h) on a log scale
100th percentile of 14

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
APEX-AgentsLeaderboardAgentic

32.4%

68.4% of the best (47.4%)
63th percentile of 49

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
Vending-Bench 2LeaderboardAgentic

$8,018

89.3% of the best ($11,182) on a log scale
88th percentile of 53

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
CybenchSelf-reportedAgentic

93.0%

best published result
of 7 models

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
DeepResearch BenchLeaderboardAgentic

55.3%

best published result
of 19 models

high

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
Vision ArenaLeaderboardMultimodal

1,299

48% expected win rate against the board leader (1,313)
94th percentile of 54

high · board 2026-08-27

Source: Arena (LMArena) — Leaderboard Dataset
Text ArenaLeaderboardHuman preference

1,505

50% expected win rate against the board leader (1,507)
99th percentile of 92

high · board 2026-09-02

Source: Arena (LMArena) — Leaderboard Dataset

Nearby on the leaderboard

Compare with its neighbours.

Theo

The best models, ranked here, working inside Theo.

28 of the models on this page run inside Theo today. Theo picks the right one for each step and always shows which engine answered.