Back to the trend of the day: Facebook's owner launches an AI assistant that remembers you, mostly for paying users
Poly Rating · from the trend of the day

Best AI Model Right Now: Claude Opus 5.5 Leads (Oct 2026)

Meta's own chart has Muse Wonder Full beating Claude Opus 5.5 in 8 of 14 tests, but on the independent Artificial Analysis index it still trails, 56 to 58, and only paying subscribers can use it.

  • No. 1: Claude Opus 5.5
  • 10 places

01Final list

The leading AIs each built their own list of ten independently. Here is one result that is easy to check: every place has a reason, a source, and the list of AIs that included it.

Order: from most to least AI agreement.

A bright badge means this AI put the entry on its list. A dim badge means it did not.

  1. 1

    Claude Opus 5.5

    First on the independent index at 58 and third in the crowd arena at 1,508. It holds its place best once outsiders do the testing.

    Included it: Claude, ChatGPT.

    In their lists: Claude: 1 · ChatGPT: 1

    What each AI noted 2
    • Claudeplace 1

      First on the independent index at 58, top three in the crowd arena at about 1,507–1,509, and the same $4/$20 price as Muse Wonder: the smallest trust gap on the list.

      Source ↗
    • ChatGPTplace 1

      It leads the independent index, but the Arena snapshot puts it 16 points behind Gemini 4 Argon.

      Source ↗
    2 AIs put it here
    Source ↗
  2. 2

    Gemini 4 Argon

    First in the crowd arena at 1,524 but only 53 on the independent index. No outsider has repeated Google's headline test, and the public can't use it yet.

    Included it: Claude, ChatGPT.

    In their lists: Claude: 3 · ChatGPT: 2

    What each AI noted 2
    • Claudeplace 3

      It is #1 in the crowd arena at about 1,524 and Google claims wins in 12 of 18 launch tests, yet the independent index has it at only 53 and most users can't open it.

    • ChatGPTplace 2

      The Arena snapshot’s top model also has the lowest reported hallucination rate among models scoring at least 45 on AA’s index.

      Source ↗
    2 AIs put it here
    Source ↗
  3. 3

    Claude Fable 5.1

    Costs $10/$50 per million tokens, 2.5 times Opus 5.5, yet scores 53 against 58 on the independent index and is sixth in the arena at 1,501.

    Included it: Claude, ChatGPT.

    In their lists: Claude: 6 · ChatGPT: 6

    What each AI noted 2
    • Claudeplace 6

      It costs $10/$50 per million tokens, 2.5 times Opus 5.5, yet scores 53 against 58 on the independent index and sits sixth in the arena at 1,501.

      Source ↗
    • ChatGPTplace 6

      It scored 53 in AA’s v4.3 release note, tied there with GPT-6 Astra, but AA’s later Opus analysis compares it as a lower-cost-task frontier rival.

      Source ↗
    2 AIs put it here
    Source ↗
  4. More about the top three ↓
  5. 4

    Claude Sonnet 5.5

    Ties Meta's flagship at 56 on the independent index and scored 64% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 there, above Opus 5.5's 60%. It has no arena score yet.

    Included it: Claude, ChatGPT.

    In their lists: Claude: 4 · ChatGPT: 7

    What each AI noted 2
    • Claudeplace 4

      At max effort it ties Meta's flagship at 56 on the independent index, and it was added to the crowd arena on October 6.

      Source ↗
    • ChatGPTplace 7

      AA reports a 64% Terminal-Bench 4.0 result, ahead of the 60% figures it reports for Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra.

      Source ↗
    2 AIs put it here
    Source ↗
  6. 5

    Muse Wonder Full (Meta)

    Beats Opus 5.5 in 8 of 14 rows on Meta's own chart, but scores 56 to Opus's 58 on the independent index. Subscribers only, from $50 a month.

    Included it: Claude, ChatGPT.

    In their lists: Claude: 2 · ChatGPT: 3

    What each AI noted 2
    • Claudeplace 2

      Meta's own chart has it beating Opus 5.5 in 8 of 14 rows, yet the independent index puts it two points behind at 56, and it sits behind a $50-a-month subscription with no API.

      Source ↗
    • ChatGPTplace 3

      Meta’s sibling version scores 68 on AA’s coding-agent index, two points above Claude Opus 5.5’s reported 66 there.

      Source ↗
    2 AIs put it here
    Source ↗
  7. 6

    Muse Wonder (Meta)

    Second in the crowd arena at 1,509, a point above Opus. Yet it scores 52 on the independent index and loses 9 of 14 rows on Meta's own chart.

    Included it: Claude, ChatGPT.

    In their lists: Claude: 5 · ChatGPT: 4

    What each AI noted 2
    • Claudeplace 5

      Meta's chart wins it MemoryBench at 85.6, but the independent index ranks it 52, behind the three Claude models, and it takes 19 seconds to the first token against a 5.5-second median.

      Source ↗
    • ChatGPTplace 4

      Meta’s headline model lands second in the opened Arena snapshot, while AA’s independent coding-agent score trails its Full sibling by five points.

      Source ↗
    2 AIs put it here
    Source ↗
  8. 7

    GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI)

    OpenAI claimed 98.6% on ARC-AGI-3, but ARC Prize's standard run found about 62.7% (one write-up reports this). Scores 53 on the independent index and has no arena entry.

    Included it: Claude, ChatGPT.

    In their lists: Claude: 7 · ChatGPT: 5

    What each AI noted 2
    • Claudeplace 7

      OpenAI's claimed 98.6% on ARC-AGI-3 fell to about 62.7% when ARC Prize re-ran it under its standard harness: the widest replication gap in this ranking.

      Source ↗
    • ChatGPTplace 5

      AA describes it as a strong index contender using about 27,000 output tokens per index task, versus about 119,000 for Opus 5.5 max.

      Source ↗
    2 AIs put it here
    Source ↗
  9. 8

    GPT-5.6 Sol (OpenAI)

    OpenAI's best crowd-arena entry sits only 21st at 1,485, and it scored 47 on the v4.3 independent index, well below its newer siblings.

    Included it: Claude, ChatGPT.

    In their lists: Claude: 10 · ChatGPT: 8

    What each AI noted 2
    • Claudeplace 10

      At 44 on the independent index it trails Opus 5.5 by 14 points, the largest gap in this ranking.

      Source ↗
    • ChatGPTplace 8

      It appears in the Arena top-five lab view, though the displayed model rank is 21 rather than a top-five model placement.

      Source ↗
    2 AIs put it here
    Source ↗
  10. 9

    Kimi K3 (Moonshot AI)

    1,487 in the crowd arena (18th on arena.ai, 16th in an older snapshot), but it has no independent-index score, so its trust gap can't be measured.

    Included it: Claude, ChatGPT.

    In their lists: Claude: 9 · ChatGPT: 10

    What each AI noted 2
    • Claudeplace 9

      It is the only non-US lab in the Arena top 20 here, at 1,488 (rank 16), but I found no independent-index score for it.

      Source ↗
    • ChatGPTplace 10

      The Arena lab table places it fourth by lab, but its model rank is 18—an example of why lab rank and model rank should not be conflated.

      Source ↗
    2 AIs put it here
    Source ↗
  11. 10

    GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI)

    Scores 52 on the independent index for $0.72 a task, about an eighth of Opus 5.5's $5.98. There is no maker chart or arena score to set beside it.

    Included it: Claude. Did not include: ChatGPT.

    In their lists: Claude: 8

    What each AI noted 1
    • Claudeplace 8

      It scores 52 on the independent index for only $0.72 per task, about a seventh of Opus 5.5's $5.98.

      Source ↗
    1 AIs put it here
    Source ↗

02More about the top three

The ranking is above. Here is more about the three places at the top: what they are, why they are here, and what is worth knowing.

The ranking uses the independent Artificial Analysis index, but the crowd arena (Gemini 4 Argon first) and the makers' own launch tests give a different order, and per-task costs differ from per-token prices.

1Claude Opus 5.5

No. 1 — Claude Opus 5.5. On the lists of 2 of 2 AIs; median place there: 1. The AIs put it first because it leads the independent index and holds up best when outsiders do the testing.

Did you know

  • Opus 5.5 costs less per token than Opus 5, but it can cost more per task. Artificial Analysis puts it at $5.98 per benchmark task, because it uses more tokens. For sensitive cybersecurity and biology questions it quietly falls back to Claude Opus 4.8.

    Source ↗
What it is
Anthropic's top Claude model, priced at $4 in and $20 out per million tokens.
Its edge
Scores 58 on the independent index, above Gemini 4 Argon and Fable 5.1 at 53.
Who it suits
Suits people who want the best tested results; heavy Max-effort users may find it costly.
  • Independent index score58 on independent index
Why it is here

  • Artificial Analysis scores Opus 5.5 at 58, the highest score it had measured at launch. That is 5 points above Fable 5.1’s 53 on the same index. — (voice only)

    Source ↗
Did you know

  • On Anthropic's business-report test, Opus 5.5 passed the quality bar on 16 of 18 attempts. Fable 5.1 and Opus 5 failed every attempt. The same page says it also scored perfectly on Vals' ProofBench v1.1 math-proof test.

    Source ↗
History

  • In 2026, Opus 5.5 became the first Opus model to launch with safeguards like Fable 5.1’s for cybersecurity, biology, and model theft. Anthropic said those protections can route some requests to another model. — (voice only)

    Source ↗
Keep in mind

  • Max effort mode costs far more usage. Redditors report 4x to 6x, and Anthropic gives no fixed number. Experienced users say Max tends to overthink, so they prefer high or xhigh.

    Source ↗

  • Many Redditors distrust Anthropic's launch charts, which mostly use max effort. Fable 5.1 still beats Opus 5.5 in some side-by-side coding tests. One user said it made questionable architecture choices.

    Source ↗
Where to go further

  • Read Anthropic's launch page for Opus 5.5. Look first at the price line: $4 in and $20 out per million tokens. Then check the platforms list, since it runs on AWS, Google Cloud and Azure too.

    Source ↗
Compare the top three ↓

2Gemini 4 Argon

No. 2 — Gemini 4 Argon. On the lists of 2 of 2 AIs; median place there: 2.5. The AIs rank it second because the crowd arena puts it first, but the independent index and limited access hold it back.

Did you know

  • Argon can read text, pictures, video, audio and PDFs, but it only writes text back. Google's page lists audio generation, image generation and the Live API as "Not supported". Computer use, where it controls a screen, is still labeled Preview.

    Source ↗
What it is
Google's newest Gemini model, which reads many kinds of input but writes only text.
Its edge
Ranks first in the crowd arena at about 1,524, ahead of the other two.
Who it suits
Suits paid Google users who like crowd-voted quality; not free users or anyone needing image or audio output.
  • Independent index score53 on independent index
History

  • When Google announced Gemini 4 Argon on September 30, 2026, it first rolled the model out to trusted cyber defenders. Google said it would expand access in stages while it gathered feedback and improved safeguards. — (voice only)

    Source ↗
Keep in mind

  • Google made it public on October 13, but only for paid API developers and Pro or Ultra subscribers. The $2/$10 price is introductory and rises to $4/$20 with no announced end date.

    Source ↗
Compare the top three ↓

3Claude Fable 5.1

No. 3 — Claude Fable 5.1. On the lists of 2 of 2 AIs; median place there: 6. The AIs put it third because it costs far more than Opus 5.5 yet scores lower on the independent index.

Did you know

  • Fable 5.1 kept its $10/$50 price but cut cache reads by 75%, from $1.00 to $0.25 per million tokens. Even so, Artificial Analysis measured $3.76 per task at max effort, 20% above Fable 5, because it writes about 1.7 times as many tokens.

    Source ↗
What it is
Anthropic's pricier Claude model, at $10 in and $50 out per million tokens.
Its edge
Its cache-read price cut to $0.25 per million tokens can lower costs on repeated work.
Who it suits
Suits heavy-caching coding work; not people with one-off tasks or a tight budget.
  • Independent index score53 on independent index
Why it is here

  • Fable 5.1 scores 53 on Artificial Analysis’s Intelligence Index, 5 points below Opus 5.5’s 58, despite costing $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens versus Opus’s $4 and $20. — (voice only)

    Source ↗
Did you know

  • In Cognition's coding test, Fable 5.1 cost fell from $5.84 to $2.68 per task. Over 95% of the tokens there were cache reads. Tasks with no reusable context get no benefit from the cache cut.

    Source ↗
History

  • In 2026, Fable 5 was taken offline for all users after new US export controls meant Anthropic could not reliably check users’ nationality. Access returned globally on July 1, after the controls were lifted. — (voice only)

    Source ↗
Keep in mind

  • One test of 14 tasks found no savings. Fable 5.1 cost $0.14693 against $0.080725 for Opus 5, and all models passed 14 of 14. Anthropic's savings claims may depend on heavy caching.

    Source ↗
Where to go further

  • Open Anthropic's Fable page and look at the price first: $10 in and $50 out per million tokens. Then check which plans include it, such as Pro, Max, Team and Enterprise.

    Source ↗
Compare the top three ↓

The top three side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Gemini 4 ArgonClaude Fable 5.1
In the AIs' lists2 / 22 / 22 / 2
Independent index score58 on independent index53 on independent index53 on independent index
Put first byClaude, ChatGPT——

Places with the same number of AIs are ordered by their average place in the AIs' own lists.

More ratings

03Worth knowing

What the AIs noticed while building the list.

On Meta's own model card, Muse Wonder loses 9 of 14 rows to Opus 5.5 at the same $4/$20 price. Wonder Full wins 8 of 14, but it isn't sold through the API.

Noticed by:
Included it: Claude. Did not include: ChatGPT.
Source ↗

The crowd and the independent index disagree: Gemini 4 Argon tops the arena at 1,524 but scores 53 on the index, five points behind Opus 5.5.

Noticed by:
Included it: Claude, ChatGPT.
Source ↗

OpenAI's near-perfect ARC-AGI-3 claim for GPT-6 Astra (98.6%) fell to about 62.7% under ARC Prize's standard harness.

Noticed by:
Included it: Claude. Did not include: ChatGPT.
Source ↗

Cost per task on the independent index varies about tenfold: $0.72 for GPT-6.1 Sol and $1.99 for Argon, against $5.98 for Opus 5.5 and $7.63 for Fable 5.1.

Noticed by:
Included it: Claude. Did not include: ChatGPT.
Source ↗

Index scores move between versions: GPT-6 Astra shows 53 today, against about 61 in a September write-up. Compare scores only within one snapshot.

Noticed by:
Included it: Claude, ChatGPT.
Source ↗

04How we counted

In plain words, no formulas.

1The question

Top 10 Frontier AI Models: What Their Makers Claim Against What Outside Tests Show

2Why this topic

Readers see which models hold their place once someone other than the maker does the testing, and no one leaderboard shows that.

3Where it applies

global, frontier AI models released or updated in 2026

4What we looked at

  • Trust gap: how far a model's place on its maker's own launch chart sits above or below its place on an independent index
  • Place in a crowd-voted arena of real users, set beside the other two
  • Whether any third party has repeated the maker's headline test
  • Price of the strongest tier, and whether that tier is limited to paying subscribers
  • Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index — An independent score across ten evaluations at stated effort levels, plus cost per task. Read live on October 20, 2026.
  • Arena (formerly LMArena) text leaderboard — Elo ratings from head-to-head votes by real users. They reflect what voters prefer, style included. The snapshot is dated October 15, 2026.
  • Maker launch charts (Meta, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google) — Tests each maker picks for its own launch. Meta's 14-row card mixes internal, third-party and vendor-supplied results, and Meta ran rival models
  • Third-party repeats of maker headline tests — Datacurve (DeepSWE 1.1) and Abundant AI (SWE-Marathon) ran the Muse Wonder models, and ARC Prize re-ran GPT-6 Astra on ARC-AGI-3.

5Who ranked

The leading AIs, each building its own list of ten independently and naming a source for every place: Claude, ChatGPT.

6How the places were set

The same entry written differently by different AIs was counted as one. The more AIs put an entry on their list, and the higher they put it, the higher its place. "AI agreement" shows how many of the AIs had it on their own list. Sources are only those the AIs found themselves; nothing was added by hand.

05Each AI's own list

🇺🇸 Claude10 places · 4 notes

The same question, answered by Claude alone. The final list above combines all the AIs.

  1. 1
    Claude Opus 5.5 (2026)

    First on the independent index at 58, top three in the crowd arena at about 1,507–1,509, and the same $4/$20 price as Muse Wonder: the smallest trust gap on the list.

    Source ↗
  2. 2
    Muse Wonder Full (Meta, 2026)

    Meta's own chart has it beating Opus 5.5 in 8 of 14 rows, yet the independent index puts it two points behind at 56, and it sits behind a $50-a-month subscription with no API.

    Source ↗
  3. 3
    Gemini 4 Argon (Google, 2026)

    It is #1 in the crowd arena at about 1,524 and Google claims wins in 12 of 18 launch tests, yet the independent index has it at only 53 and most users can't open it.

  4. 4
    Claude Sonnet 5.5 (2026)

    At max effort it ties Meta's flagship at 56 on the independent index, and it was added to the crowd arena on October 6.

    Source ↗
  5. 5
    Muse Wonder (Meta API model, 2026)

    Meta's chart wins it MemoryBench at 85.6, but the independent index ranks it 52, behind the three Claude models, and it takes 19 seconds to the first token against a 5.5-second median.

    Source ↗
  6. 6
    Claude Fable 5.1 (2026)

    It costs $10/$50 per million tokens, 2.5 times Opus 5.5, yet scores 53 against 58 on the independent index and sits sixth in the arena at 1,501.

    Source ↗
  7. 7
    GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, 2026)

    OpenAI's claimed 98.6% on ARC-AGI-3 fell to about 62.7% when ARC Prize re-ran it under its standard harness: the widest replication gap in this ranking.

    Source ↗
  8. 8
    GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI, 2026)

    It scores 52 on the independent index for only $0.72 per task, about a seventh of Opus 5.5's $5.98.

    Source ↗
  9. 9
    Kimi K3 (Moonshot AI, 2026)

    It is the only non-US lab in the Arena top 20 here, at 1,488 (rank 16), but I found no independent-index score for it.

    Source ↗
  10. 10
    Grok 4.6 (xAI, 2026)

    At 44 on the independent index it trails Opus 5.5 by 14 points, the largest gap in this ranking.

    Source ↗

What Claude noticed

Meta's own model card shows Wonder losing 9 of its 14 launch rows to Opus 5.5 at the identical $4/$20 price. Wonder Full wins 8 of 14, but Wonder Full is not available through the API.

Source ↗

Gemini 4 Argon leads the crowd arena at about 1,524, with Anthropic models filling the next five places at 1,501–1,507, yet it sits at 53 on the independent index, five points behind Opus 5.5. It is also not open to the public.

Source ↗

OpenAI's near-perfect ARC-AGI-3 claim for GPT-6 Astra (98.6%) fell to about 62.7% under the ARC Prize's standard harness.

Source ↗

The cost per task spans a factor of about 10 on the independent index: $0.72 for GPT-6.1 Sol and $1.99 for Argon, against $5.98 for Opus 5.5 and $7.63 for Fable 5.1.

Source ↗
🇺🇸 ChatGPT10 places · 3 notes

The same question, answered by ChatGPT alone. The final list above combines all the AIs.

  1. 1
    Claude Opus 5.5

    It leads the independent index, but the Arena snapshot puts it 16 points behind Gemini 4 Argon.

    Source ↗
  2. 2
    Gemini 4 Argon

    The Arena snapshot’s top model also has the lowest reported hallucination rate among models scoring at least 45 on AA’s index.

    Source ↗
  3. 3
    Muse Wonder Full

    Meta’s sibling version scores 68 on AA’s coding-agent index, two points above Claude Opus 5.5’s reported 66 there.

    Source ↗
  4. 4
    Muse Wonder

    Meta’s headline model lands second in the opened Arena snapshot, while AA’s independent coding-agent score trails its Full sibling by five points.

    Source ↗
  5. 5
    GPT-6 Astra

    AA describes it as a strong index contender using about 27,000 output tokens per index task, versus about 119,000 for Opus 5.5 max.

    Source ↗
  6. 6
    Claude Fable 5.1

    It scored 53 in AA’s v4.3 release note, tied there with GPT-6 Astra, but AA’s later Opus analysis compares it as a lower-cost-task frontier rival.

    Source ↗
  7. 7
    Claude Sonnet 5.5

    AA reports a 64% Terminal-Bench 4.0 result, ahead of the 60% figures it reports for Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra.

    Source ↗
  8. 8
    GPT-5.6 Sol

    It appears in the Arena top-five lab view, though the displayed model rank is 21 rather than a top-five model placement.

    Source ↗
  9. 9
    Muse Spark 1.3

    AA’s v4.3 index note places it at 48, below the new Wonder models’ claims of roughly 85 on Meta’s separate MemoryBench scale.

    Source ↗
  10. 10
    Kimi K3

    The Arena lab table places it fourth by lab, but its model rank is 18—an example of why lab rank and model rank should not be conflated.

    Source ↗

What ChatGPT noticed

The independent and crowd signals do not line up exactly: Gemini 4 Argon tops the opened Arena snapshot, while Artificial Analysis calls Claude Opus 5.5 the Intelligence Index leader.

Source ↗

AA reports a sharp task-specific split within Meta’s pair: Wonder Full scores 68 on coding agents and Wonder 63, while the reported Intelligence Index numbers are 56 and 52 respectively.

Source ↗

Arena’s page says its October 15 snapshot represents 8,834,211 votes; the page describes broad open-ended tasks, not a controlled capability test.

Source ↗