VERIFIED ORGANISATION

Anthropic

Explore the documented models, published evaluations and primary sources associated with this organisation.

01 / MODELS

Verified catalogue

KNOWLEDGE AND CODE

Claude Opus 5

Model oriented to code and knowledge work, with controls that allow effort to be adjusted to each task.

16 SEP 2026 LONG-RUNNING REASONING

Claude Fable 5.1

Long-running reasoning and agents.

16 SEP 2026 COST/CAPABILITY BALANCE

Claude Sonnet 5

Coding, research, and professional tool-based workflows.

16 SEP 2026 HIGH EFFICIENCY

Claude Haiku 4.5

High volume, subagents, and structured extraction.

16 SEP 2026 PREVIOUS FRONTIER · AGENTS

Claude Opus 4.5

Previous Opus version focused on code, agents, and computer use, retained for migration and historical comparison.

18 SEP 2026 AGENTS AND COMPUTER USE

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Previous Sonnet generation for code, agents, and interface automation, with official computer use results.

18 SEP 2026 CLASSIFICATION, EXTRACTION AND SUBAGENTS

Anthropic model released on October 7, 2026 for frequent, cost- and latency-sensitive tasks. It accepts text and images and returns text, including code; it does not generate images, audio or video. Its one-million-token window and adaptive thinking expand the Haiku family without making it a universal replacement for Sonnet or Opus on complex work.

08 OCT 2026 AGENTIC CODING AND KNOWLEDGE WORK

Claude Opus 5.5

Next-generation Opus for agentic coding, computer use, and extended professional work, with a one-million-token context.

29 SEP 2026 BALANCED INTELLIGENCE AND SPEED

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Sonnet update for everyday tasks, code, and documents, with improved speed and a million tokens of context.

08 OCT 2026

02 / EVALUATIONS

Published results

Figures are shown with the context reported by their source. A provider result is not an independent comparison and does not replace your own evaluation.

Model	Benchmark	Result	Metric
Claude Opus 5	Terminal-Bench Science 0.1	29,0 %	Accuracy
Claude Opus 5	CursorBench 3.2	70,0 %	Accuracy
Claude Opus 5	AutomationBench	26,9 %	Accuracy
Claude Fable 5.1	Terminal-Bench Science 0.1	52,6 %	Accuracy
Claude Fable 5.1	CursorBench 3.2	73,4 %	Accuracy
Claude Fable 5.1	Humanity's Last Exam	65,0 %	With tools
Claude Sonnet 5	OSWorld-Verified	Curve by effort	Success and cost
Claude Sonnet 5	BrowseComp	Curve by effort	Accuracy and cost
Claude Haiku 4.5	SWE-bench Verified	73,3 %	Resolved
Claude Haiku 4.5	Terminal-Bench	41,75 %	With reasoning
Claude Opus 4.5	Evaluaciones Claude Opus 4.5	Published	Code, agents, and computer
Claude Sonnet 4.5	OSWorld	61,4 %	Computer tasks solved
Claude Haiku 5.5	GDPval-AA v2.1	1.620	Rating
Claude Haiku 5.5	AA-Briefcase v1.1	1.578	Rating
Claude Haiku 5.5	OSWorld 2.1 (offline subset)	72,4 %	Accuracy
Claude Haiku 5.5	Humanity’s Last Exam (no tools)	45,9 %	Accuracy
Claude Haiku 5.5	Humanity’s Last Exam (with tools)	57,4 %	Accuracy
Claude Haiku 5.5	Terminal-Bench 4.0	39,2 %	Accuracy
Claude Haiku 5.5	FrontierCode 1.1 (Main)	46,4 %	Accuracy
Claude Haiku 5.5	Chartography (no tools)	46,4 %	Accuracy
Claude Opus 5.5	Terminal-Bench 4.0	66,4 %	Accuracy
Claude Opus 5.5	GDPval-AA v2.1	1.846	Elo
Claude Sonnet 5.5	Terminal-Bench 4.0	70,6 %	Accuracy

03 / METHOD

How to read the directory

An organization, a product, and a model are not the same unit. Inferama separates them to avoid attributing capabilities or commercial terms to the wrong item.

Laboratory

Entity that develops or publishes the model and maintains its technical and safety documentation.

Model

Identifiable version with limits, modalities, and behavior that may change between releases.

Access channel

API, application, associated cloud, or commercial plan; each channel may have different pricing, retention, and limits.

Source and date

Every claim must retain the official page consulted and the verification date.

ANALYSIS

Related analysis

COMPARATIVA

Claude Opus 5.5 in production: how to estimate cost per task

The supplied documentation shows figures of $4 and $20 for Claude Opus 5.5, but the available evidence does not confirm the billing unit. This guide provides a formula, conditional scenarios, and a method for measuring your workload without treating cache or batch-processing rates as verified.

17 Oct 2026 COMPARATIVA

Claude Opus 5.5 vs. Sonnet 5.5 for support triage: what to measure before choosing

There are no verified results from a shared test of these models on query classification, extraction, and escalation. This guide proposes a reproducible protocol for comparing them without confusing general benchmarks with operational results.

05 Oct 2026 COMPARATIVA

Claude Opus 4.5 Evaluations: What the Tests Compare and What They Can Actually Tell Us

The available sources point to provider evaluations, a system card, and an independent study of IDE agents, but they do not provide enough detail to treat them as a single ranking. This guide separates what is documented from what still needs to be verified.

02 Oct 2026 ANALISIS

Claude Sonnet 5.5 under scrutiny: what its speed, cost and performance figures mean

Anthropic presents Sonnet 5.5 as an improvement over Sonnet 5, with higher speed and lower costs for most work. We examine what the available sources support—and what teams should verify before adopting it.

01 Oct 2026 ANALISIS

Claude Opus 5.5 and Prompt Injection: What the Security Test Shows—and What We Still Don’t Know

Anthropic says Claude Opus 5.5 tied with Fable 5.1 for the lowest prompt-injection success rate among the models Gray Swan evaluated. The supplied documentation does not let us verify the figure, protocol, or conditions behind that comparison. Here is what can be said—and what still needs verification.

01 Oct 2026 GUIA

Claude Sonnet 4.5 with tools: calculate the cost of a task, not just a call

A template for estimating tool-workflow costs by round, separating input and output tokens from additional charges, and checking the calculation against usage logs.

28 Sep 2026

04 / SOURCES

Traceability