Anthropic · model passport
Claude Opus 4
claude-opus-4- Cloud only
- Proprietary licence
- Released 2025-05-22(curated)
- Overall · LMArena
- 1,426#107 of 396
- Best percentile
- 83.8Instruction following
- Cohort standing
- 53.3median 50.3
What the data says
Benchmarked on 13 of 27 tracked axes. Every figure below is the model's own published result on that board.
Uneven: 56.2 percentile points between its best and worst axis — 83.8 pct on Instruction following versus 27.6 pct on HHEM Hallucination (Vectara).
- Instruction following83.8 pct1,444Verify →
- Coding81.6 pct1,498Verify →
- Hard prompts76.3 pct1,457Verify →
- Overall73.2 pct1,426Verify →
- SimpleBench67.8 pct58.8%Verify →
- GPQA Diamond56.6 pct76.3%Verify →
- Vision Arena49.3 pct1,208Verify →
- AIME (math)45.5 pct64.4%Verify →
- ARC-AGI-242.7 pct8.6%Verify →
- Humanity's Last Exam39.1 pct10.7%Verify →
- FrontierMath31.9 pct4.5%Verify →
- SWE-bench Verified28.1 pct70.7%Verify →
- HHEM Hallucination (Vectara)27.6 pct88.0%Verify →
- WebDev ArenaNot benchmarked
- Factuality ArenaNot benchmarked
- Search ArenaNot benchmarked
- Document ArenaNot benchmarked
- Agent ArenaNot benchmarked
- SimpleQA VerifiedNot benchmarked
- LiveBenchNot benchmarked
- BFCL v4 (function calling)Not benchmarked
- SWE-bench Verified (live board)Not benchmarked
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Not benchmarked
- MMLU-Pro (Artificial Analysis)Not benchmarked
- LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis)Not benchmarked
- IFBench (Artificial Analysis)Not benchmarked
- Terminal-BenchNot benchmarked
Percentiles are the model's standing within each board's own population. Axes marked "not benchmarked" have no published result for this model — that is an absence of data, not a low score.
claude-opus-4-20250514-thinking-16k stands at 53.3 (raw mean 54.1) — measured on 13 of 27 axes.
claude-opus-4-20250514-thinking-16k stands at 53.3 versus a cohort median of 50.3 across 146 models released within 180 days — above the peer median.
claude-opus-4-20250514-thinking-16k ranks between #84 and #470 across 6 built-in weightings — best under "Conversation-first", worst under "All sources".
Every claim is a computed fact from the current board data, phrased by a low-temperature model call and rejected by a validation gate if any number is not in the source row. How the leaderboards work →