---
title: "Claude Opus 4.6"
type: model
id: "claude-opus-4.6"
provider: "Anthropic"
model_type: "proprietary"
release_date: "2026-02"
description: "Anthropic's most capable model and the first Opus-class model with a 1M token context window. Leads on coding benchmarks with 80.8% SWE-bench. Internal codename \"Fennec.\""
last_updated: "2026-04-10"
context_window: "1M tokens"
website: "https://anthropic.com"
license: "Proprietary"
modality:
- "text"
- "image"
tags:
- "anthropic"
- "proprietary"
- "text"
- "image"
pricing:
input: "$5.00 / 1M tokens"
output: "$25.00 / 1M tokens"
note: "Significantly cheaper than Opus 4.5"
benchmarks:
reasoning: 96
coding: 97
math: 93
writing: 95
multilingual: 88
speed: 62
best_for:
- "Complex coding projects"
- "Long-form analysis"
- "Agentic workflows"
- "Tasks requiring accuracy"
---
# Claude Opus 4.6
The best coding model available. At 80.8% SWE-bench and a 97/100 coding score, Opus 4.6 leads every other model on the benchmarks that matter most for real-world software engineering. If you're choosing between this and GPT-5.4, the decision comes down to whether you value SWE-bench leadership (Opus) or broader ecosystem integrations (GPT).
The 1M context window with no surcharge is a genuine differentiator -- Opus can hold an entire mid-size codebase in one pass. The agent teams feature is unique to Claude and worth exploring if you're building multi-step workflows. Writing quality at 95/100 is also best-in-class among frontier models, making this the rare model that excels at both code and prose.
At $5/$25 per million tokens, the output pricing is higher than GPT-5.4's $15, but significantly cheaper than the previous Opus 4.5. The speed score of 62/100 means Opus is not the model for rapid-fire chat -- it thinks carefully, and you feel it. For complex tasks that's a feature, not a bug.
**When to pick something else:** If you mostly need quick answers and speed matters, Sonnet 4.6 is 80% of the quality at nearly half the output cost. For math-heavy work, GPT-5.4 Thinking edges ahead with a 97/100 math score vs. Opus's 93. And if you're locked into the OpenAI ecosystem with existing tooling, the switching cost may not be worth it.
Claude Opus 4.6
The best coding model available. At 80.8% SWE-bench and a 97/100 coding score, Opus 4.6 leads every other model on the benchmarks that matter most for real-world software engineering. If you're choosing between this and GPT-5.4, the decision comes down to whether you value SWE-bench leadership (Opus) or broader ecosystem integrations (GPT).
The 1M context window with no surcharge is a genuine differentiator -- Opus can hold an entire mid-size codebase in one pass. The agent teams feature is unique to Claude and worth exploring if you're building multi-step workflows. Writing quality at 95/100 is also best-in-class among frontier models, making this the rare model that excels at both code and prose.
At $5/$25 per million tokens, the output pricing is higher than GPT-5.4's $15, but significantly cheaper than the previous Opus 4.5. The speed score of 62/100 means Opus is not the model for rapid-fire chat -- it thinks carefully, and you feel it. For complex tasks that's a feature, not a bug.
When to pick something else: If you mostly need quick answers and speed matters, Sonnet 4.6 is 80% of the quality at nearly half the output cost. For math-heavy work, GPT-5.4 Thinking edges ahead with a 97/100 math score vs. Opus's 93. And if you're locked into the OpenAI ecosystem with existing tooling, the switching cost may not be worth it.