Opus 5
A reportedly forthcoming flagship large language model from Anthropic, rumored to succeed the Fable model and representing the fifth generation of the Claude family's Opus series.
Core Facts
Opus 5.5 reaches the level of Fable 5.1 on most tasks, but with approximately 40% lower operating costs and faster speed.
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores 77.0 on DeepSWE v1.1, surpassing Claude Opus 5's 74.0.
Anthropic states that Opus 5.5 can reduce total costs for typical tasks by approximately 40% and improve output speed by more than 30%.
Timeline (last 90 days)
Gemini 4 ranks slightly above Sol 5-6, but below the latest models such as 6 Sol, Fable 5 and Opus 5.
On the quality-cost Pareto frontier, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash sits at the far upper left, beating models such as Opus 5, Fable 5, GPT 6.1 Soul, Gemini 3.8 Flash, and GLM 5.3 Max.
In the official comparison table, the 1017 version leads Opus 5 on four items.
On the automation bench, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash version 1017 scored 60 points, while Opus 5 scored 50.
In one test case, GPT-5.6 Sol cost 32.5 times Jev, and Opus 5 cost 184.9 times Jev.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash version 1017 has 763 billion total parameters and uses the MIT open-source license.
The blogger pointed out four discount factors in the benchmark comparison: different test frameworks (TerminalBench 1017 ran within the ClaudeCode framework while the baseline ran within the DeepSeek framework), Artificial Analysis's own test of the old Flash on TerminalBench scored only 26.8% rather than 31.2%, the competitor comparison used Opus 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol rather than the latest models, and the old model's NL2 repo score is inconsistent across different tables (64.0 vs 65.4).
When Opus 5 was released, Anthropic removed more than 80% of Claude Code's own instructions.
The Opus 5 guide explicitly states that the model already checks itself, and that writing "please check again" in the prompt only increases cost without improving results.
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores 77.0 on DeepSWE v1.1, surpassing Claude Opus 5's 74.0.
40 more timeline events
All Facts (20)
Opus 5.5 reaches the level of Fable 5.1 on most tasks, but with approximately 40% lower operating costs and faster speed.
80%VerifiedDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores 77.0 on DeepSWE v1.1, surpassing Claude Opus 5's 74.0.
70%VerifiedAnthropic states that Opus 5.5 can reduce total costs for typical tasks by approximately 40% and improve output speed by more than 30%.
70%VerifiedClaude Opus 5.5 generates output more than 30% faster than Opus 5.
70%VerifiedV4.1 Flash surpassed Opus 5 on the DeepSWE benchmark by a narrow margin of 0.2 points.
70%VerifiedOpus 5 is the flagship model of Anthropic's Claude series, known for its longer context window (capable of handling codebases of hundreds of thousands of tokens) and more cautious output style.
65%VerifiedAccounting for real usage scenarios, the actual cost advantage of Opus 5 over Fable is approximately 20% to 25%, with Fable costing about $2.75 per task and Opus 5 about $2.03.
65%UnverifiedThe release party claimed that the cost of DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is only 1/40 that of Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol.
70%Partially VerifiedThe per-task cost of GPT-6 Sol High on Automation Bench is only one-tenth that of Opus 5.
65%UnverifiedOpus 5 can handle multiple technical layers in a single generation, including 3D scene construction, collision detection, user input response, and audio triggering.
60%UnverifiedClaude Opus 5 scored 30.2% on ARC-AGI-3, compared to only 1.5% for the previous generation.
60%UnverifiedClaude Opus 5 scored 1861 on the knowledge work benchmark GDPval, above the human average.
60%UnverifiedGemini 4 ranks slightly above Sol 5-6, but below the latest models such as 6 Sol, Fable 5 and Opus 5.
50%UnverifiedOn the quality-cost Pareto frontier, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash sits at the far upper left, beating models such as Opus 5, Fable 5, GPT 6.1 Soul, Gemini 3.8 Flash, and GLM 5.3 Max.
50%UnverifiedIn the official comparison table, the 1017 version leads Opus 5 on four items.
50%UnverifiedOn the automation bench, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash version 1017 scored 60 points, while Opus 5 scored 50.
50%UnverifiedIn one test case, GPT-5.6 Sol cost 32.5 times Jev, and Opus 5 cost 184.9 times Jev.
50%UnverifiedDeepSeek V4.1 Flash version 1017 has 763 billion total parameters and uses the MIT open-source license.
50%UnverifiedThe blogger pointed out four discount factors in the benchmark comparison: different test frameworks (TerminalBench 1017 ran within the ClaudeCode framework while the baseline ran within the DeepSeek framework), Artificial Analysis's own test of the old Flash on TerminalBench scored only 26.8% rather than 31.2%, the competitor comparison used Opus 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol rather than the latest models, and the old model's NL2 repo score is inconsistent across different tables (64.0 vs 65.4).
50%UnverifiedThe Opus 5 guide explicitly states that the model already checks itself, and that writing "please check again" in the prompt only increases cost without improving results.
50%