AI MODEL PROFILE

Claude Opus 5

Anthropic's strongest model for work that runs long, where holding context and recovering from mistakes matters more than a single clever answer.

Source review Last reviewed August 7, 2026 By Anthropic

The facts at a glance

ProviderAnthropic
TypeFrontier reasoning model
Current version or tierclaude-opus-5, released 24 July 2026
ModalityText and vision, with computer use
AccessProprietary
Context or limits1,000,000 token context, 128,000 max output, knowledge cutoff May 2026
Free optionNo. Paid Claude plans, Claude Code, the API, AWS Bedrock, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Foundry
Paid priceUSD 5.00 per million input and USD 25.00 per million output. Fast Mode runs at twice the base price

Pricing last checked August 7, 2026. Prices change and vary by region. Check the official pricing page ↗

Assessment

What it does well

  • Anthropic reports state of the art results on Frontier-Bench and GDPval-AA
  • Reported within 0.5 percent of the far more expensive Claude Fable 5 on CursorBench 3.2, at half the cost
  • Computer use and a one million token context suit multi step agent work

Where it falls short

  • No free access route
  • The effort parameter defaults to high, and Anthropic's documentation notes it needs raising to xhigh to reach the advertised results, so out of the box behaviour understates the model
  • Fast Mode doubles the price for roughly 2.5 times the speed, which is a real cost decision rather than a free upgrade

Privacy and data control

API and commercial use are covered by Anthropic's commercial terms rather than the consumer training settings. Confirm which terms apply to your account before sending confidential material.

The longer read

The parameter most people miss

Anthropic’s own documentation notes that Opus 5’s effort parameter defaults to high, and that reaching the published results generally requires setting it to xhigh. If you evaluate this model on defaults and conclude it underperforms its benchmarks, that is the likely reason. It is an unusual amount of honesty from a model card, and worth acting on.

How it performs by outcome

We assess products against a job, not a leaderboard. These are the outcomes this entry is compared under.

Worth comparing against

How this profile was produced

Source review. Every fact here is drawn from the provider documentation linked below and checked on the date shown. We have not yet run this entry through a controlled test, and no scoring is implied.

Read the full review methodology →

Primary sources