None
None
Long Story Video Skill
Turn your idea into 10s–10min video—AI writes scripts, prompts, and generates footage automatically.
Ads Video Skill
Generate professional ads and sales videos—AI auto-generates scripts, prompts, and footage.
3D Science Explainer Video Skill
Convert scientific concepts into stunning 3D explain animations
Feedback
freeTrialImage.bannerPity
freeTrialImage.upgradeUnlock
- ✓freeTrialImage.benefitHd
- ✓freeTrialImage.benefitWatermark
- ✓freeTrialImage.benefitUnlimited
opus 5 vs opus 5.5
Side-by-side Opus 5 vs Opus 5.5 runs on tough logic work: both nailed every answer, yet the newer release billed far less and pushed tokens out faster.
All Tools
Discover our comprehensive AI-powered animation toolkit
MiniMax H3
MiniMax H3 AI Video Generator
Seedance 2.5
The Future of AI Video Is Here.
Seedance 2.0
The Future of AI Video Is Here.
FLUX 3 Video Generator
Kling 3.0
Next-Gen AI Video Generator
Grok Video Generator
Create Videos from Text or Images with AI
MiniMax H3 video generator
MiniMax H3 AI Video Generator
Seedance 2.0
The Future of AI Video Is Here.
Inside the Opus 5 vs Opus 5.5 Upgrade
Anthropic claims Opus 5.5 trims spend and shortens waits versus Opus 5. We put that Opus 5 vs Opus 5.5 promise through a live API workload to see whether the numbers survive real reasoning work.
- What Anthropic Promises on Price and PaceThe vendor pitch: bills trimmed 40%, generation over 30% quicker, and reasoning on par with Claude Fable 5.1 instead of falling behind the previous Opus.
- A New API Rate CardInput tokens now run $4 per million and returned tokens $20 per million, versus $5 and $25 before — a rate card that alone shaves roughly a fifth off the bill.
- How the Reasoning Runs Were Set UpEach prompt was sent to both Claude versions through the Anthropic API, adaptive thinking left at default effort, with a single pass per problem per model.
Our Opus 5 vs Opus 5.5 Test Protocol
Every call recorded token counts, wall-clock time, and list-price cost — three demanding puzzles, a single attempt each.
Where the Opus 5 vs Opus 5.5 Runs Landed
Dollars, tokens, writing pace, and the spots where each model stumbled — all captured across the paired Opus 5 vs Opus 5.5 runs.
Grid Accuracy: Dead Heat
Both filled all 28 cells correctly; the newer model simply flagged that it had not formally proven the solution was the only one.
Fewer Tokens Written
On the stone game the newer version emitted 62% fewer output tokens; on the grid it spent 43% less — brevity did most of the work.
Streaming Pace
Averaged over every call, the newer release produced 103.4 tokens per second versus 93.1 — roughly 11% quicker, peaking at a 19% edge on one puzzle.
Bill Per Puzzle
The grid ran $0.16 against $0.27, the stone game $0.58 against $1.88, and the whole experiment closed at $10.50.
Where Both Models Stalled
Neither version solved the ordering task — each could think for some 20 minutes and return no text, and the newer one ended on a refusal stop reason.
Hand Counting to a Code Tool
If a problem boils down to enumeration, as the ordering task did, give the model a code execution tool instead of expecting it to reason its way to the figure.
Opus 5 vs Opus 5.5 — Reader Questions
Straight answers on price tags, generation pace, and reasoning scores for both Claude releases.
Does Opus 5.5 cost less than Opus 5?
It does. Our grid run came in 43% below its predecessor and the stone game 69% below, with the gap driven mainly by shorter responses.
Which model streams tokens more quickly?
The newer one, by about 11% overall and up to 19% on its best puzzle — though that still trails the 30% improvement Anthropic advertises.
Are the reasoning abilities actually different?
Not on our evidence. Both cleared the grid and the stone game, and both returned nothing usable on the constrained ordering task — no measurable edge either way.
Why did a harmless prompt trigger a refusal?
It ended the ordering run with a refusal stop reason and no output — most likely an over-cautious safety filter misreading a benign request.
Is it worth migrating to Opus 5.5?
If you already call Opus 5, the swap keeps answer quality steady while lowering spend and latency — just cap the output length before you do.
How can I keep spending under control?
Cap output tokens and monitor usage, because either version can think for roughly 20 minutes, return nothing, and still charge you for the tokens.
Reproduce the Opus 5 vs Opus 5.5 Experiments Yourself
Grab the published prompts, point both Claude versions at your own workload, then move across with an output cap in place to lock in the savings and the quicker responses.