Claude Opus 5
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by Anthropic · Released 2025-01-01
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for Claude Opus 5?
Architectural Overview
Frontier foundation model developed by Anthropic featuring Next-Gen Ultra-Dense Hybrid Reasoning architecture.
Optimal Production Use Cases
Pinnacle autonomous software architecture, whole-system enterprise codebases, PhD-level scientific synthesis, and complex multi-agent delegation.
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model your expected production workload across prompt (input) and completion (output) tokens.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$5/1M in · $25/1M out
$0.18/1M in · $0.72/1M out
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 84.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.80 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (6.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers faster response latency with 140ms TTFT (200ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku.
Claude Opus 5 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (1.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Sonnet delivers faster response latency with 320ms TTFT (20ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 63.7% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Claude Opus 5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (1.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (310ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 70.3% for Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
Claude Opus 5 vs Codestral 25.01
Codestral 25.01 is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.90 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Codestral 25.01 delivers faster response latency with 150ms TTFT (190ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Codestral 25.01.
Claude Opus 5 vs Composer 2.5
Composer 2.5 is 64.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.80 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $7.20 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (2.8x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Composer 2.5 delivers faster response latency with 180ms TTFT (160ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 74.6% for Composer 2.5.
Claude Opus 5 vs DeepSeek-R1
DeepSeek-R1 is 89.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.55 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.19 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (9.1x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (1460ms faster than DeepSeek-R1). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek-R1.
Claude Opus 5 vs DeepSeek-V3
DeepSeek-V3 is 97.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (35.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek-V3 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (0ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek-V3.
Claude Opus 5 vs DeepSeek-V4 Flash
DeepSeek-V4 Flash is 97.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.56 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (35.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek-V4 Flash delivers faster response latency with 150ms TTFT (190ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 62.4% for DeepSeek-V4 Flash.
Claude Opus 5 vs Fable 5
Fable 5 is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (2.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Fable 5 delivers faster response latency with 240ms TTFT (100ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 58.0% for Fable 5.
Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 98.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (50.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (40ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 48.0% for Gemini 2.0 Flash.
Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is 98.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.08 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.32 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (62.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.7 Flash delivers faster response latency with 75ms TTFT (265ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 68.2% for Gemini 3.7 Flash.
Claude Opus 5 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
GLM 5.3 Flash is 97.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.50 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (33.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GLM 5.3 Flash delivers faster response latency with 130ms TTFT (210ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
Claude Opus 5 vs OpenAI GPT-4o
OpenAI GPT-4o is 50.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (2.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI GPT-4o delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (60ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-5.6 Luna is 96.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.18 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.72 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (27.8x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5.6 Luna delivers faster response latency with 90ms TTFT (250ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 48.5% for GPT-5.6 Luna.
Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Claude Opus 5 is 37.5% cheaper for input tokens ($5.00 vs. $8.00 per 1M tokens) and $25.00 vs. $32.00 for output tokens (1.6x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (80ms faster than GPT-5.6 Sol). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 79.5% for GPT-5.6 Sol.
Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra is 70.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.50 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (3.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5.6 Terra delivers faster response latency with 210ms TTFT (130ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 65.4% for GPT-5.6 Terra.
Claude Opus 5 vs Grok 3
Grok 3 is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (1.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (510ms faster than Grok 3). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 58.5% for Grok 3.
Claude Opus 5 vs xAI Grok 4.6
xAI Grok 4.6 is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (2.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, xAI Grok 4.6 delivers faster response latency with 280ms TTFT (60ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 76.8% for xAI Grok 4.6.
Claude Opus 5 vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 96.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.18 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (27.8x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (80ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct.
Claude Opus 5 vs Mistral Large 2
Mistral Large 2 is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (2.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (210ms faster than Mistral Large 2). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 39.0% for Mistral Large 2.
Claude Opus 5 vs OpenAI o1
Claude Opus 5 is 66.7% cheaper for input tokens ($5.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $25.00 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (3.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (510ms faster than OpenAI o1). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 48.9% for OpenAI o1.
Claude Opus 5 vs o3-mini
o3-mini is 78.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (4.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (860ms faster than o3-mini). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 49.3% for o3-mini.
Claude Opus 5 vs Microsoft Phi-4 (14B)
Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) is 97.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (41.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) delivers faster response latency with 110ms TTFT (230ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 42.1% for Microsoft Phi-4 (14B).
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct is 93.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (14.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (80ms faster than Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 44.0% for Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct.
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen 2.5 Max
Qwen 2.5 Max is 94.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.28 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.84 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (17.9x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5 delivers faster response latency with 340ms TTFT (140ms faster than Qwen 2.5 Max). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Qwen 2.5 Max.
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 97.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (41.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (220ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does Claude Opus 5 cost per 1M tokens?
Claude Opus 5 costs $5.00 per million prompt (input) tokens and $25.00 per million completion (output) tokens.
What is the context window for Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 supports a maximum context window of 1,024,000 tokens, with a maximum single-generation output of 128,000 tokens.
What are the primary use cases for Claude Opus 5?
Pinnacle autonomous software architecture, whole-system enterprise codebases, PhD-level scientific synthesis, and complex multi-agent delegation.