Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.6 Sol

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
Margin
13.4pts
winning →
81.96/100
1 category wins4 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); GPT-5.6 Sol #3 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.6 Sol share 22 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 24 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 24 to GPT-5.6 Sol.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
22
Claude Opus 4.6 only
24
GPT-5.6 Sol only
24
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick GPT-5.6 Sol if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.6 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 5 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

GPT-5.6 Sol is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 81.96 to 68.59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GPT-5.6 Sol's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 87.5 against 36.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 22.900% to 83.000%. Claude Opus 4.6 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

GPT-5.6 Sol is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.6. GPT-5.6 Sol is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.6 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.6 Sol
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔGPT-5.6 Sol
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3Margin→ 51.2GPT-5.6 Sol87.5
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1Margin→ 25.5GPT-5.6 Sol94.6
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0Margin→ 19.0GPT-5.6 Sol92.0
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3Margin→ 5.7GPT-5.6 Sol83.0
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin← 3.5GPT-5.6 Sol64.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · GPT-5.6 Sol

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.900%B 83.000%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 60.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.6 scored 22.900%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 83.000%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 40.700%B 89.000%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 48.3
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.6 scored 40.700%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 89.000%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.4%B 91.9%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 26.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 91.9%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 53.4%B 64.6%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 11.2
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 64.6%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

  5. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83.7%B 92.2%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 8.5
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 83.7%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 92.2%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.6 SolComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputGPT-5.6 Sol$5 input / $30 outputClaude Opus 4.6 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sGPT-5.6 SolNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sGPT-5.6 SolNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MGPT-5.6 Sol1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGPT-5.6 Sol wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.6 SolResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%91.9%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
BrowseCompSource 83.7%92.2%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%85.1%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 66.6%84.5%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Gert LabsSource 61.85%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —62.6%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource —33.7%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —58%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —54.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —61.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1736Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1501Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —56.2%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —33.0%Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —51.2%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —87.2%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —65.9%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —88%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.6 SolResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%64.6%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%56.1%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —91.9%Not comparable
deepSweSource —72.7%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource —60.6%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —67.2%Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source —87.0%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —77.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.6 SolResult
AA-LCRSource 58.3%73.7%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
CritPtSource 2.8%32.3%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
ARC-AGI-3Source —7.8%Not comparable
GeneBench-ProSource —28.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeGPT-5.6 Sol wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.6 SolResult
GPQASource 91.3%94.6%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPQA-DSource 89.2%94.6%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%—Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 40%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 14.8%33.1%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 52.1%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.8%58.9%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%94.1%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%47.2%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%21.7%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%58.5%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%88.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
HealthBench ProfessionalSource —60.5%Not comparable
MathGPT-5.6 Sol wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.6 SolResult
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%89.000%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%83.000%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
FrontierMath (legacy)Source —89%Not comparable
MultimodalGPT-5.6 Sol wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.6 SolResult
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%83%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
ERQASource 51.6%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 64.8%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 72.5%83.4%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1325—Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —84.6%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6GPT-5.6 SolResult
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%72.7%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 81.96 to 68.59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 22.900% and 83.000%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 94.6 versus 69.1. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.1 versus 64.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 87.5 versus 36.3. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 92 versus 73. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 83 versus 77.3. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.