AI Agent StoreLow
Tested mode0.0 pts vs Low
$0.7446 / source task
98 s median duration
Anthropic · REASONING EFFORT GUIDEClaude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5
How much thinking?
Compare Low vs Medium vs High vs Extra high vs Max where tested. Find the effort setting that fits your task, and see how much extra reasoning changes the result.
SAME MODEL. DIFFERENT THINKING.
Find Claude Opus 5’s useful effort.
Hex DataBench v1.1
Published blended DataBench score, on a 0–100 scale. Judge-based analytical task performance; not a general intelligence or guaranteed success rate.
Analytics in the Hex agent harness · Leaderboard updated: 2026-09-22 · Reviewed September 23, 2026Check the source ↗YOUR NEAR-BEST PICKMax
Lowest measured cost within 1.0 points of the best tested analytics score.
19.7 / 100 · $2.11 / source taskExact best1.0 pts10 pts
Set 0 for the highest score. Increase the gap to explore cheaper or lighter options.
THE EFFORT CURVE
Does more thinking help?
● Near-best pickOrange = score decreased
Scores out of 100 · Full 0–100 scale · tap a point to select mode B. Cyan band: within 1.0 points of the best tested score.
WHAT YOU SPEND
Cost of more effort
Measured average USD per benchmark task.
Low$0.7446
Medium$1.1
High$1.61
Extra high$1.89
MaxNear-best pick$2.11
Within this benchmark and harness. Your task mix, tools, caching and endpoint can change the result.
Score difference · B minus A+4.0 pts
Noticeable gap · B scored higher
Measured cost · B / A2.83×
Same benchmark workload
Median duration · B / A4.00×
Measured in the source harness
Gap labels are editorial: under 1 point is small, 1–under 5 noticeable, 5+ large. They do not establish statistical significance. A tied score does not prove equivalent behavior.
Watch these effort increases.
High → Extra high-0.7 pts18.0 → 17.3 on analytics score
EVERY TESTED MODE
5 modes · missing levels are not interpolatedThe numbers behind the choice
15.7 / 100
Medium
Tested mode+1.3 pts vs Low
$1.1 / source task
149 s median duration
High
Tested mode+2.3 pts vs Low
$1.61 / source task
246 s median duration
Extra high
Another mode trades better+1.7 pts vs Low
$1.89 / source task
337 s median duration
Max
Near-best pick+4.0 pts vs Low
$2.11 / source task
393 s median duration
Full benchmark table & exact configuration IDs
Swipe inside the table for all measures. Figures from different study selections are not directly comparable.
| Effort | Analytics score | Cost / task | Median seconds | Output tokens | Exact source ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | 15.7 | $0.7446 | 98.2 | — | Opus 5 · Low |
| Medium | 17.0 | $1.1 | 149.5 | — | Opus 5 · Medium |
| High | 18.0 | $1.61 | 246.5 | — | Opus 5 · High |
| Extra high | 17.3 | $1.89 | 337.5 | — | Opus 5 · XHigh |
| Max | 19.7 | $2.11 | 392.7 | — | Opus 5 · Max |
SCALE THE OBSERVED COST
Effort cost difference calculator
What would A versus B cost if you repeated this benchmark’s average workload?
A · Low$744.62
B · Max$2,109.06
Difference$1,364.44more with B
A source-workload scenario using average measured USD costs. Source prices, caching and tools are already reflected in those observed costs. Your agent’s costs may differ.
YOUR WORKLOAD
Reasoning-token cost calculator
Estimate the extra bill from thinking tokens. The starting token counts are editable examples, not measurements of Claude Opus 5. Rates start from our September 23 model snapshot.
A · Low$100estimated monthly cost
B · Max$200estimated monthly cost
Mode B costs $100 more per month with these assumptions.
Standard text-token arithmetic. Excludes retries, tools, caching, long-context premiums, hosting and taxes. Includes thinking in output billing; do not also include it in “visible output.” Check endpoint limits separately. Changing mode does not automatically predict tokens or quality.
Claude Opus 5 effort benchmarks at a glance
Each card is its own comparable sweep. Scores from different benchmarks or question sets measure different work and are not averaged together.
Analytics · DataBench v1.1
Published blended DataBench score, on a 0–100 scale. Judge-based analytical task performance; not a general intelligence or guaranteed success rate.
- Low
- 15.7 · $0.7446 / task
- Medium
- 17.0 · $1.1 / task
- High
- 18.0 · $1.61 / task
- Extra high
- 17.3 · $1.89 / task
- Max · pick
- 19.7 · $2.11 / task
Near-best pick: Max at 1-point tolerance. Score spread: 4.0 points.
Explore this sweep ↗Math, code & science · OckBench
Correct answers out of 200 problems. Domain proportions are 100 math, 60 coding and 40 science.
- Low
- 85.0
- Medium
- 85.0
- High · pick
- 94.0
- Extra high
- 95.0
- Max
- 94.5
Near-best pick: High at 1-point tolerance. Score spread: 10.0 points.
Explore this sweep ↗Reasoning effort, explained
Which Claude Opus 5 thinking level is most efficient?
Max is the lowest-cost option within 1 point of the best analytics score in Hex DataBench v1.1. The tested score range is 4.0 points. This uses a 1-point practical tolerance in the first listed study. Change the evidence, task measure and tolerance above to get a recommendation for another benchmark. It is a shortlist for testing your own workload.
Which Claude Opus 5 effort settings are compared?
Low, Medium, High, Extra high, Max appear in the collected studies. Each chart only includes modes tested together in that study. These published labels do not establish that every endpoint or application exposes every setting.
Does more effort improve Claude Opus 5?
In Hex DataBench v1.1, High to Extra high lowers the observed score by 0.7 points. The overall tested range is 4.0 points. These are observed differences, not proof that extra thinking caused the decline.
How much more does high effort cost for Claude Opus 5?
Use the A/B selector and measured-cost calculator when the source reports dollar costs. For your own agent, enter average input, visible output and thinking tokens in the token calculator. Higher effort is adaptive, so the label itself cannot tell you the bill. Missing costs stay missing.