Model profile
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking
Evidence coverage
16 of 323 tracked benchmarks are published. 1 is verified and 15 provisional. 7 of 8 categories are measured.
- Published / tracked
- 16 / 323
- Verified
- 1
- Provisional
- 15
- Categories with evidence
- 7 / 8
Evidence by category
- Agentic1 benchmarkReported
- Coding2 benchmarksMixed evidence
- Reasoning2 benchmarksReported
- Knowledge7 benchmarksReported
- Math0 benchmarksNot measured
- Multilingual1 benchmarkReported
- Multimodal2 benchmarksReported
- Inst. Following1 benchmarkReported
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking ranks #69 out of 200 models on the public leaderboard with an overall score of 57.44/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for BenchLM's verified leaderboard. While not a frontier model, it offers specific advantages depending on the use case.
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking is a proprietary model with a 200K token context window. It uses explicit chain-of-thought reasoning, which typically improves performance on math and complex reasoning tasks at the cost of higher latency and token usage.
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking sits inside the Claude Opus 4.5 family alongside Claude Opus 4.5. This profile currently has 16 of 323 tracked benchmarks. BenchLM only exposes non-generated benchmark rows publicly, so missing categories stay blank until a sourced evaluation is available.
Its strongest category is Knowledge (#30). This performance profile makes it particularly effective for knowledge-intensive tasks like research, analysis, and factual Q&A.
Peer position
Exact provisional scores and ranks for the closest listed peers. A score can appear before a model clears the evidence threshold for a rank, so equal scores can have different rank states.
Range 56.91–57.96
- Gemma 4 26B A4BGoogleCompare#6757.96Gemma 4 26B A4B is #67 with a score of 57.96.
- GLM-4.5Z.AICompare#6857.56GLM-4.5 is #68 with a score of 57.56.
- Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingCurrent modelAnthropic#6957.44Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking is #69 with a score of 57.44.
- Gemini 2.5 ProGoogleCompare#7057.25Gemini 2.5 Pro is #70 with a score of 57.25.
- Qwen3.5 397BAlibabaCompare#7157.01Qwen3.5 397B is #71 with a score of 57.01.
- Qwen3.5-35B-A3BAlibabaCompare#7256.97Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is #72 with a score of 56.97.
- GPT-5.3-Codex-SparkOpenAICompare#7356.91GPT-5.3-Codex-Spark is #73 with a score of 56.91.
Category percentile
More
Relative position among models eligible for each sourced category. A higher percentile means a stronger position within that category's ranked cohort; 100 is highest.
- Knowledge43%Eligible cohort rank #30 of 52Category score 67.9
Category evidence
Scores and ranks appear only where this model has published benchmark evidence. Categories without displayable source records remain not measured.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticWeight 22%1 benchmarkReported | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 22% | 1 benchmark | Reported |
| CodingWeight 20%2 benchmarksMixed sources | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 20% | 2 benchmarks | Mixed sources |
| ReasoningWeight 17%2 benchmarksReported | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 2 benchmarks | Reported |
| KnowledgeRank #30 of 52Percentile 43rdWeight 12%7 benchmarksReported | 67.9 | #30 of 52 | 43rd | 12% | 7 benchmarks | Reported |
| MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultilingualWeight 7%1 benchmarkReported | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 1 benchmark | Reported |
| MultimodalWeight 12%2 benchmarksReported | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 2 benchmarks | Reported |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%1 benchmarkReported | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 1 benchmark | Reported |
Benchmark Details
Rows below have a displayable published verification record. Each source link and provenance note remains in the page HTML while its category is closed. Source-unverified manual rows and generated rows stay hidden.
Agentic1 benchmark
τ²-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation
Coding2 benchmarks
Vibe Code Bench v1.1
Artificial Analysis SciCode
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Artificial Analysis Long Context Reasoning
Critical Physics Tasks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond
Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam
Artificial Analysis Omniscience Index
Artificial Analysis Omniscience Accuracy
Artificial Analysis Omniscience Hallucination Rate
Artificial Analysis MMLU-Pro
Multilingual1 benchmark
Artificial Analysis Global-MMLU-Lite
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Artificial Analysis MMMU-Pro
Design Arena Website Elo
Inst. Following1 benchmark
Artificial Analysis IFBench
Frequently Asked Questions
How does Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking has 16 published benchmark scores on BenchLM, but it does not yet have enough non-generated coverage to receive a global overall rank.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking good for knowledge and understanding?
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking ranks #30 out of 52 models in knowledge and understanding benchmarks with an average score of 67.9. There are stronger options in this category.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking good for coding and programming?
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking has visible benchmark coverage in coding and programming, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking good for reasoning and logic?
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking has visible benchmark coverage in reasoning and logic, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking has visible benchmark coverage in agentic tool use and computer tasks, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking good for multimodal and grounded tasks?
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking has visible benchmark coverage in multimodal and grounded tasks, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking good for instruction following?
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking has visible benchmark coverage in instruction following, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking good for multilingual tasks?
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking has visible benchmark coverage in multilingual tasks, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.
Which sibling models are related to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking?
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking belongs to the Claude Opus 4.5 family. Related variants on BenchLM include Claude Opus 4.5.
Does Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
Not yet. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking currently has 16 published benchmark scores out of the 323 benchmarks BenchLM tracks. BenchLM only exposes non-generated public benchmark rows, so missing categories stay blank until a sourced evaluation is available.
What is the context window size of Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking?
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking has a published context window of 200K, which determines how much text it can process in a single interaction.
Related Resources
Choose with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, new releases, pricing changes, and the evidence behind them.
Free. One email per week.