Claude Opus 5.5 review navigator
Official benchmarks, independent analysis, and community reports about Claude Opus 5.5, clearly separated from Tabbit's own testing.
Media
5 source-checked resourcesClaude Opus 5.5: Official Benchmarks and Scope
Anthropic's published results show Claude Opus 5.5 performing strongly on selected agentic coding, knowledge-work, and computer-use benchmarks, and claim that its typical workload costs 40% less than Opus 5; these figures come from vendor-published material, a.
METR's Predeployment Evaluation of Claude Opus 5.5
METR's preliminary evaluation finds that Claude Opus 5.5 makes incremental gains over Fable 5.1 across several AI R&D-related tasks. It may modestly increase researcher productivity, but there is no evidence that it can fully automate AI R&D.
SonarSource: Evaluating Claude Opus 5.5 on Java Code Generation
On SonarSource's Java coding tasks, Opus 5.5 High's measurable task pass rate was less than one percentage point below Opus 5 Thinking's. Opus 5.5 generated less code and fewer issues overall, but had higher bug and concurrency issue densities per line of code.
Artificial Analysis Evaluation: Claude Opus 5.5 Tops the Intelligence Index, with Cost and Output Measurements
In Artificial Analysis's snapshot dated 2026-09-22, Claude Opus 5.5 at the max effort level topped the rankings with an Intelligence Index score of 58. It was strong on knowledge work and several agent evaluations, but generated a large volume of output, with .
CodeRabbit: Claude Opus 5.5's Recall–Precision Trade-off in Code Review
In two tests of its code review pipeline, CodeRabbit found some issues that its production baseline missed, while also missing some issues the baseline caught. Standard slightly outperformed Max on 80 OSS patterns; on 13 harder Signal cases, Max produced more .
Community
1 source-checked resourcesClaude Opus 5.5
Use and compare models in Tabbit
Official benchmarks, independent analysis, and community reports about Claude Opus 5.5, clearly separated from Tabbit's own testing.