claude-opus-5-5 real-task evaluations

Every report keeps its original task, method, finding, limitation, evaluator identity and verification date. A community report is evidence about that run, not a universal score.

Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol on one interactive website prompt
By Kappaemme (@Kappaemme1926). X user who posted this side-by-side test Published 2026-09-23; retrieved 2026-09-24; verified 2026-09-24.
Task
Build an interactive website about imaginary planets from a single prompt
Method
Same prompt with both models on High; the author reported wall-clock time, how much each result covered and the share of each subscription's usage.
Finding
Opus 5.5 took 26 minutes and built a fuller, explorable solar system with more detail, using 16% of the $20 plan's usage; GPT-6 Sol took 10 minutes for three planets and 1% of the $200 plan's usage.
Limitation
One prompt judged by the author; the usage shares are meters of two different subscription plans, not API costs.
Four models build the Eiffel Tower in Three.js
By Bhavy (@Bhavani_00007). X user who ran the same Three.js task on four models and reported cost and time Published 2026-09-23; retrieved 2026-09-24; verified 2026-09-24.
Task
Build the Eiffel Tower in Three.js
Method
Same task on Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra, GPT-6 Sol and Kimi K3; the author reported cost and time for each and compared the results by eye.
Finding
Opus 5.5 cost $8.95 and took 10 minutes; the author preferred its frontend and 3D detailing to GPT-6 Astra's ($7.45, 8 minutes), found GPT-6 Sol ($3.90, 5 minutes) disappointing and Kimi K3 ($4.04, 6 minutes) strong for the price.
Limitation
One task judged by eye by the author; the post does not say how the models were run or how the costs were counted.
Claude Pro, Codex Plus and SuperGrok on the same work at maximum settings
By shownotover (@shownotover). X user comparing $20 AI subscriptions in their first video Published 2026-09-24; retrieved 2026-09-24; verified 2026-09-24.
Task
One piece of work run on each $20 subscription; the task itself is shown only in the author's video
Method
Each plan's top model at maximum reasoning (Grok 4.7 at xhigh); the author recorded the share of the weekly limit, tokens, working time and a 1–10 quality score.
Finding
Opus 5.5 used 10% of the weekly limit (115 million tokens) over 2 hours and scored 5/10, behind GPT-6 Sol at 7/10 (29 million tokens, 69 minutes) and Grok 4.7 at 6/10; the author still recommends Claude at $20 for its usage allowance.
Limitation
The post does not describe the task, the quality score is the author's own, and the numbers are subscription meters rather than API usage.
Eight weeks of Claude Code usage re-priced at Opus 5 and Opus 5.5 rates
By Drasezv (u/Drasezv). r/ClaudeCode member who built the transcript-reading tool the analysis comes from Published 2026-09-23; retrieved 2026-09-24; verified 2026-09-24.
Task
Price every request from eight weeks of the author's own Claude Code transcripts at Opus 5 and Opus 5.5 list prices
Method
Requests deduplicated by requestId and priced per row, with cache reads, 1h and 5m cache writes, output and plain input counted separately.
Finding
97% of the tokens were cache reads, so the same usage came to $2,849 at Opus 5.5 rates against $5,071 at Opus 5 rates — 44% less, rather than the 20% the headline input and output prices suggest.
Limitation
It re-prices the same token counts and does not measure whether Opus 5.5 uses more or fewer tokens on the same work; list prices, not subscription billing; the author built the tool that read the transcripts.
Four models build a lava lamp from one prompt
By Bridgebench (@bridgebench). BridgeMind's benchmark account, which calls itself the official AI benchmark of the vibe coding movement Published 2026-09-23; retrieved 2026-09-24; verified 2026-09-24.
Task
Build a lava lamp from a single prompt
Method
Same prompt on Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra, GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna; the account reported cost and time, asked readers which did best and commented on their answers in replies.
Finding
Claude Opus 5.5 was the slowest and most expensive at $1.27 and 9 min 35 s, and in replies the account agreed it had a rough showing, answering 'Not on this test' to a claim that Opus beat Sol.
Limitation
One prompt with the quality verdict left mostly to readers; the account is BridgeMind's own benchmark and does not say how the models were accessed.
Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol on a black hole merger test
By Bridgebench (@bridgebench). BridgeMind's benchmark account, which calls itself the official AI benchmark of the vibe coding movement Published 2026-09-24; retrieved 2026-09-24; verified 2026-09-24.
Task
The account's black hole merger visualisation test
Method
The same test on both models; the account reported cost and time and judged the design.
Finding
Claude Opus 5.5 cost $0.69 and took 6 min 8 s; the account called it 'a significant leap for design', while GPT-6 Sol did the test for $0.08 in 1 min 33 s.
Limitation
One test judged by the account; the task is shown only in the attached video.
Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Sol on one motion-graphic prompt
By Hunter Bohm (@TheHunterBohm). Builds agent systems for business and posted a longer comparison video Published 2026-09-23; retrieved 2026-09-24; verified 2026-09-24.
Task
Make a 20-second motion graphic explaining how a language model turns a prompt into an answer and why long answers cost more
Method
Same prompt on both models; the author reported time and cost and posted the prompt and a full comparison video in replies.
Finding
Claude Opus 5.5 took 12.7 minutes and $2.86 against GPT-6 Sol's 11.4 minutes and $1.09; the author called the gap 'not even close' and, in replies, agreed that Sol's result was far worse.
Limitation
One subjective prompt; the verdict comes from the author's post and replies rather than a score.
AI Coding Daily LLM Coding Leaderboard
By AI Coding Daily (@AICodingDaily). Coding-model testing channel and website that runs its own leaderboard and sells premium tutorials and channel advertising Published 2026-09-24; retrieved 2026-09-24; verified 2026-09-24.
Task
Implement and harden production-shaped projects in several stacks, including a Laravel app, a Go service and a React/TypeScript app, from the same prompts
Method
Each model and reasoning setting is a separate row run in a coding harness, with the average cost and time per run. Code quality is graded by a judge model against a published 100-point rubric and scaled to 20 points per project; behavioural reliability runs each of four projects five times and scores the checks every attempt fails.
Finding
Claude Opus 5.5 led the board at 57.83 on high reasoning ($0.79 and 3 min 10 s per run in Claude Code), with its medium setting second at 57.37.
Limitation
One author's benchmark whose code-quality half is graded by a judge model; rows run in different harnesses, the page is updated as models are added (read on 2026-09-24, 47 rows), and the author sells premium tutorials and advertising.
kzhu's six-question LLM test leaderboard
By AI产品狙击手 kzhu (@kevinzhu9305). Chinese YouTube reviewer who scores models on a six-question test and publishes every score with per-question notes Published 2026-09-24; retrieved 2026-09-24; verified 2026-09-24.
Task
Six questions scored out of 10: constrained sentence writing, two reasoning puzzles (replaced by pelican and compound-bow SVG animations in version 2.2), a browser OS with a space shooter, a 3D racing game and a Trello-style board
Method
Each row names the harness the model ran in (Pi, Claude Code, WorkBuddy and others) and the date; the author scores every question with a note, and warns that totals are only comparable within one test version.
Finding
Claude Opus 5.5 scored 55/60 on version 2.2 in Pi (54 in the author's note), 9 or 10 on every question; the author called its pelican SVG the best implementation seen and found nothing to fault in the browser OS, racing game or Trello board.
Limitation
One author's scores on six questions; rows use different harnesses and test versions (2.1 or 2.2), and a few rows' table total differs by one point from the author's note.