Ranks compare reported scores in the same published row; ties share a rank.
FrontierCode v1.1 (Main). Haiku max; Sonnet xhigh, not its 46.2% max-effort run.
All eight results and four comparison columns from Anthropic’s announcement, read 8 October 2026. Haiku 5.5 uses max effort; Sonnet’s FrontierCode uses xhigh. HLE is split into no-tools and with-tools rows. OSWorld uses partial credit on the official 82-task offline subset, differing from earlier combined-subset reports. AA ran GDPval-AA and AA-Briefcase; these rounded quotes from Anthropic remain separate from the directly imported public AA measurements. GPT results retain the source and configuration described in the system card. Missing cells stay blank; the reported Haiku 4.5 Terminal-Bench score is zero. Each rank compares one published row only.
www.anthropic.com/claude-haiku-5-5
Ranks compare reported scores in the same published row; ties share a rank.
FrontierCode v1.1 (Main, max). §8.3: Cognition runs, mean of five attempts on the hardest 100 tasks. Claude Code / Codex.
FrontierCode v1.1 (Main, xhigh). Table 8.1.A: xhigh is separate from max; Sonnet scores higher at xhigh.
Section 8, pages 111–139 of the Haiku 5.5 system card, read 8 October 2026. Values come from exact prose, tables and labelled figures. Unless specified, Haiku uses adaptive thinking at max effort and five trials with evaluation-specific context up to 1M. Each row retains its subset, metric, effort and source notes; no score is assigned to an unspecified SWE-Bench Pro version. Terminal runs use safeguards without fallback and no internet egress. ProgramBench uses filtered tasks and hidden-test pass rate without a time limit. OSWorld partial and strict results use the official 82-task offline subset. CAD uses 0–1 voxel IoU. Healthcare raw and length-adjusted scores stay separate. Life-science results disable Haiku biology safeguards. Independently run figures quoted by Anthropic remain publisher reports here. Missing comparison values are not inferred from rounded charts.
www.anthropic.com/claude-haiku-5-5-system-card
Ranks compare reported scores in the same published row; ties share a rank.
OpenAI reports the maximum score at any effort level, in its own research environment or through its API. Claude and Gemini figures are taken by OpenAI from those vendors' published reports, so this table is a comparison between publication claims, not between runs.
openai.com/index/gpt-6-astra/
Ranks compare reported scores in the same published row; ties share a rank.
Anthropic runs its own harness and states that margin size is a weakening guide to real differences at this level. Two rows rely on other publishers: AutomationBench figures come from Zapier, and the GPT figures are as reported by OpenAI. The Claude Opus 5.5 row was run with production safeguards enabled, so some security, biology and frontier-development tasks were completed by a fallback model.
www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5-5
Ranks compare reported scores in the same published row; ties share a rank.
FrontierCode 1.1 (Main). Sonnet 5.5's 46.2% is its Max-effort run; the same model scores 52.1% at Xhigh, and Anthropic says its Max run leaned on a code-review skill whose extra edits the benchmark penalises as out of scope.
Anthropic publishes this table with Sonnet 5.5, the second model in its Claude 5.5 line, and states that Sonnet 5.5 at Max effort performs comparably to Opus 5.5 on several evaluations while Opus 5.5 remains stronger on open-ended work. The GPT-6 Sol column is quoted from OpenAI, not re-run, and Anthropic notes an OpenAI image-understanding bug that may not yet be reflected in third-party scores. Two rows come from other publishers: Artificial Analysis ran GDPval-AA and AA-Briefcase on a pre-release Sonnet 5.5 deployment that Anthropic later found had a structured-output bug, and Surge AI runs Chartography. Sonnet 5.5 launched with the cyber safeguards first built for Opus-class models, so some security work was completed by a fallback model.
www.anthropic.com/claude-sonnet-5-5