Model profile
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)
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
- Agentic2 benchmarksReported
- Coding2 benchmarksMixed evidence
- Reasoning2 benchmarksReported
- Knowledge6 benchmarksReported
- Math0 benchmarksNot measured
- Multilingual1 benchmarkReported
- Multimodal2 benchmarksReported
- Inst. Following1 benchmarkReported
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) ranks #35 out of 200 models on the public leaderboard with an overall score of 64.18/100. 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 4.6 (Adaptive) is a proprietary model with a 1M 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 4.6 (Adaptive) sits inside the Claude Opus 4.6 family alongside Claude Opus 4.6. 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 Agentic (#20), while its weakest is Coding (#21). This performance profile makes it particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
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 63.5–64.75
- Gemini 3.5 FlashGoogleCompare#3364.75Gemini 3.5 Flash is #33 with a score of 64.75.
- Claude Opus 4.5AnthropicCompare#3464.22Claude Opus 4.5 is #34 with a score of 64.22.
- Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive)Current modelAnthropic#3564.18Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) is #35 with a score of 64.18.
- MiniMax M2.7MiniMaxCompare#3664.11MiniMax M2.7 is #36 with a score of 64.11.
- GLM-5.2Z.AICompare#3763.96GLM-5.2 is #37 with a score of 63.96.
- GPT-5.5 ProOpenAICompare#3863.69GPT-5.5 Pro is #38 with a score of 63.69.
- GLM-5V-TurboZ.AICompare#3963.5GLM-5V-Turbo is #39 with a score of 63.5.
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.
- Agentic84%Eligible cohort rank #20 of 119Category score 55.4
- Coding83%Eligible cohort rank #21 of 122Category score 60.7
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #20 of 119Percentile 84thWeight 22%2 benchmarksReported | 55.4 | #20 of 119 | 84th | 22% | 2 benchmarks | Reported |
| CodingRank #21 of 122Percentile 83rdWeight 20%2 benchmarksMixed sources | 60.7 | #21 of 122 | 83rd | 20% | 2 benchmarks | Mixed sources |
| ReasoningWeight 17%2 benchmarksReported | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 2 benchmarks | Reported |
| KnowledgeWeight 12%6 benchmarksReported | Score pending | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 6 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 |
Chatbot Arena performance
Scroll horizontally to inspect confidence intervals and vote counts.
| View | Elo | Confidence interval | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Text Overall | 1504 | ±3.7 | 62,355 |
| Coding | 1550 | ±6.1 | 16,120 |
| Math | 1519 | ±11.0 | 3,231 |
| Instruction Following | 1513 | ±5.7 | 19,376 |
| Creative Writing | 1499 | ±7.2 | 10,627 |
| Multi-turn | 1518 | ±6.9 | 10,654 |
| Hard Prompts | 1532 | ±4.6 | 38,977 |
| Hard Prompts (English) | 1538 | ±5.8 | 18,751 |
| Longer Query | 1524 | ±5.5 | 24,855 |
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.
Agentic2 benchmarks
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
Knowledge6 benchmarks
Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond
Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam
Artificial Analysis Omniscience Index
Artificial Analysis Omniscience Accuracy
Artificial Analysis Omniscience Hallucination Rate
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 4.6 (Adaptive) perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) 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 4.6 (Adaptive) good for knowledge and understanding?
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has visible benchmark coverage in knowledge and understanding, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) good for coding and programming?
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) ranks #21 out of 122 models in coding and programming benchmarks with an average score of 60.7. There are stronger options in this category.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) good for reasoning and logic?
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has visible benchmark coverage in reasoning and logic, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) ranks #20 out of 119 models in agentic tool use and computer tasks benchmarks with an average score of 55.4. There are stronger options in this category.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) good for multimodal and grounded tasks?
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has visible benchmark coverage in multimodal and grounded tasks, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) good for instruction following?
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has visible benchmark coverage in instruction following, but BenchLM does not currently assign it a global category rank there.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) good for multilingual tasks?
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) 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 4.6 (Adaptive)?
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) belongs to the Claude Opus 4.6 family. Related variants on BenchLM include Claude Opus 4.6.
Does Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
Not yet. Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) 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 4.6 (Adaptive)?
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive) has a published context window of 1M, 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.