from line 110
110110| Pauses run for minutes | Claude Fable 5.1 | 5-minute cache kept warm, instead of the 1-hour duration |
111111| Pauses run toward an hour | Claude Fable 5.1 | 1-hour duration |
112112
113On Claude Haiku 5.5, use the “Any” rows: it reads the cache at the standard 0.1x the input price, twice the 0.05x of Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5, so by list prices each keep-alive request costs twice as much relative to the input price. A `max_tokens: 0` request refreshed its cache in a separate test (reference 16).
113On Claude Haiku 5.5, use the “Any” rows: it reads the cache at the standard 0.1x the input price, twice the 0.05x of Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5, so by list prices each keep-alive request costs twice as much, relative to the input price, as on those two models. A `max_tokens: 0` request refreshed its cache in a separate test (reference 16).
114114
115115**Why, row by row.**
116116
from line 245
245245* With tool search, the run cost stayed flat at every catalog size.
246246* Accuracy was in the same range either way, and the model never called a wrong tool, so at this scale unused definitions cost money, not correctness.
247247* [Keep your 3 to 5 most used tools loaded](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agents-and-tools/tool-use/tool-search-tool#deferred-tool-loading), so Claude can call them without searching first.
248* On the same earlier model, deferring a public GitHub MCP server’s toolset (`default_config: {defer_loading: true}` on the [MCP connector](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agents-and-tools/mcp-connector)) cut the run cost at the same accuracy. With no tool search tool in the request, no run then called the server’s tools.
248* On the same earlier model, deferring a public GitHub MCP server’s toolset (`default_config: {defer_loading: true}` on the [MCP connector](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agents-and-tools/mcp-connector)) cut the run cost at the same accuracy. With the toolset deferred and no tool search tool in the request, no run called the server’s tools.
249249
250250#### Keep data files out of the prompt
251251
from line 485
485485* At `xhigh` and `max`, Claude Sonnet 5.5 can start its own rounds of review after it finishes a task, which takes more time and tokens. To keep that work on the task, add the prompt under “Thoroughness at `xhigh` and `max` effort” in [Prompting Claude Sonnet 5.5](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/prompting-claude-sonnet-5-5#steer-initiative-and-scope) to your system prompt.
486486* On research tasks, measure the model you ship. Claude Fable 5.1 scored 2.5 points higher at `high` than at `low` on DeepResearch Bench II, for 1.6 times the cost, and no higher at `medium` than at `low`; Claude Opus 5.5 scored 13.3 points lower at `low` than at `medium` on DRACO<sup>[21](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>. The two results come from different models on different benchmarks, so they show that the answer varies, not why.
487487* At `low`, Claude Opus 5.5’s typical task took 84% less time than at `medium` on DRACO<sup>[21](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>, 30% less on HLE<sup>[22](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>, and 47% less on an internal set of physics problems<sup>[23](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>, and it scored 13.3, 3.4, and 14.0 points lower (3, 3, and 4 attempts per task).
488* On an internal defect-search benchmark for work larger than one context window<sup>[8](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>, Claude Fable 5.1 took 15.2, 17.5, and 19.9 hours per run at `low`, `medium`, and `high` (3 runs each). To save time, also compare lower effort with the two changes in [Show the model elapsed time](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#show-the-model-elapsed-time): `low` effort saved more time, and the changes kept more of the score.
488* On an internal defect-search benchmark<sup>[8](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup> (10 runs per setting), Claude Opus 5.5 scored 34 points lower at `low` than at `medium`, for about a fifth of the cost. Claude Fable 5.1 scored 1.8 points lower at `low` than at `high`, for about a quarter less.
489489
490490### Re-run failures at higher effort
491491
from line 625
625625
626626### Orchestrator strategy: delegate bulk work
627627
628Delegation saved money in only two situations, in measurements with workers on Claude Sonnet 5, an earlier model:
628In Anthropic’s measurements, delegation came out ahead in only two situations:
629629
630* Routine work with a long cost tail (an easy slice of BrowseComp<sup>[4](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>)
630* Routine work with a long cost tail (an easy slice of BrowseComp<sup>[4](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>, on earlier models)
631631* Work larger than one context window (an internal defect-search benchmark<sup>[8](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>)
632632
633633When the work is one dependent chain, or fits in a single context without a long cost tail, the orchestrator’s model alone at lower effort came out ahead in every case measured on earlier models (the harder BrowseComp set and DeepWideSearch<sup>[6](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>); independent external work reports the same pattern<sup>[5](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>.
634634
635To build an orchestrator, use [multiagent orchestration](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/managed-agents/multiagent-orchestration) in Claude Managed Agents: configure an orchestrator agent and worker agents that it can call, each with its own model.
635To build an orchestrator, use [multiagent orchestration](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/managed-agents/multiagent-orchestration) in Claude Managed Agents: configure an orchestrator agent and the subagents it can call, each with its own model.
636636
637637<Frame>
638638 
639639</Frame>
640640
641The following chart plots the defect-search benchmark’s configurations by cost and score:
641The following chart plots 9 of the defect-search benchmark’s 12 configurations by cost and score:
642642
643643<Frame>
644 
644 
645645</Frame>
646646
647647**What to do.**
648648
649649* **Routine work with a long cost tail:** measure this case first, for accuracy as well as cost. The measurement behind it covers only problems that the delegated configuration answered correctly in every run (reference 4).
650* **Work larger than one context window:** delegate partitions to workers. Lowering effort cannot help, because the bill is the reading itself: on the defect-search benchmark<sup>[8](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>, Claude Fable 5.1 alone cost $468 USD to $552 USD per run across its three effort settings and took 15 to 20 hours. With earlier-model workers, delegation cost less and finished sooner, for a lower score.
650* **Work larger than one context window:** split it into parts, one session or one subagent per part. On the defect-search benchmark<sup>[8](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>, Claude Opus 5.5 with Claude Sonnet 5.5 subagents cost about a third less than one Claude Opus 5.5 session per part at its default effort, and scored about the same. Claude Fable 5.1 as the orchestrator in Claude Opus 5.5’s place cost 24% more for no measurable gain. Alone, Claude Fable 5.1 cost 2.2 to 3.0 times as much as Claude Opus 5.5 at `high` and scored no higher.
651651* **Claude Haiku 5.5 subagents on coding tasks:** compare them with lower effort first. On an internal coding benchmark on Claude Managed Agents, they were an alternative to lowering effort, not better. Adding them to Claude Opus 5.5 at `medium`, with a short delegation prompt, cut cost per attempt by 32% and the pass rate by about 4 percentage points (95% interval 1.3 to 7.1), about what a mix of `low` and `medium` without subagents would give at that cost<sup>[29](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup>.
652652
653653## Measure on your own workload
from line 855
855855
856856The following table lists the levers in the order to try them. The figures come from Anthropic’s tests, launch posts, and published prices and speeds:
857857
858| Lever | Saving | Quality cost | Latency | Where |
859| -------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
860| Prompt caching | Cost cut by a factor of 4.8 to 7.2 on a research agent, and by 83% to 86% on a small triage agent | None | Faster | [Cache repeated context](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#cache-repeated-context) |
861| 1-hour cache duration | With 1 turn in 10 after a pause, the 5-minute default cost 54% more; with 1 in 20, about the same | None | On earlier models, stayed warm after a pause<sup>[16](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup> | [Pick the cache duration](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#pick-the-cache-duration) |
862| Input trimming | A further 21% to 26% off a small triage agent’s bill | With tool search, accuracy in the same range as without<sup>[27](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup> | Neutral | [Trim input and context tokens](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#trim-input-and-context-tokens) |
863| Tool search | 45% with 500 tool definitions attached; 20% from deferring a GitHub MCP server’s toolset | None for tools the task never needs | Neutral | [Trim input and context tokens](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#trim-input-and-context-tokens) |
864| Data files through code execution | 92% on a data task of 25 questions, with prompt caching off | A gain: 25 of 25 correct instead of 7 | Faster | [Trim input and context tokens](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#trim-input-and-context-tokens) |
865| Batch API | 50% | None | Results within 24 hours | [Batch work that can wait](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#batch-work-that-can-wait) |
866| Prompt audit against the current model | 14% on both model upgrades tested | None; a gain on one | Faster (fewer tool rounds) | [Audit prompts against the current model](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#audit-prompts-against-the-current-model) |
867| Upgrade the model | Usually less: up to 40% less on typical workloads, and up to 87% less per solved task on a coding benchmark | None; a gain on most | Neutral | [Upgrade the model](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#upgrade-the-model) |
868| Lower effort | On long coding tasks, `medium` cost about 30% to 52% less than `high`, and `low` about two thirds less | Up to 15 points lower, depending on the task; 2.5 on one research agent | Faster | [Tune effort](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#tune-effort) |
869| Re-run failures | About 40% less than running everything at `high`, at the same pass rate or slightly better | None | A second attempt on the tasks that fail | [Re-run failures at higher effort](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#re-run-failures-at-higher-effort) |
870| Ask for shorter answers | About 13% less, from 39% fewer output tokens | None | Faster | [Set budgets and output caps](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#set-budgets-and-output-caps) |
871| Raising `max_tokens` | None: cost per solved task stayed about the same | A gain: up to 22 points more tasks solved on one coding benchmark; none on another | Neutral | [Set budgets and output caps](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#set-budgets-and-output-caps) |
872| Advisor | None: about 2.1 times the cost of the model alone, on a coding benchmark | On coding, a small gain that may be chance; on chart reading, a loss | About 1.4 extra calls per attempt, on coding | [Advisor strategy](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#advisor-strategy-escalate-hard-decisions) |
873| Orchestrator | About half the cost of the orchestrator’s model alone, on work larger than one context window; on routine work, measure first | 10 to 12 points lower on that work | Much faster on that work | [Orchestrator strategy](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#orchestrator-strategy-delegate-bulk-work) |
874| Fast mode | None: twice the standard token prices | None | Up to 2.5x higher output tokens per second | [Show the model elapsed time](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#show-the-model-elapsed-time) |
858| Lever | Saving | Quality cost | Latency | Where |
859| -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
860| Prompt caching | Cost cut by a factor of 4.8 to 7.2 on a research agent, and by 83% to 86% on a small triage agent | None | Faster | [Cache repeated context](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#cache-repeated-context) |
861| 1-hour cache duration | With 1 turn in 10 after a pause, the 5-minute default cost 54% more; with 1 in 20, about the same | None | On earlier models, stayed warm after a pause<sup>[16](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup> | [Pick the cache duration](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#pick-the-cache-duration) |
862| Input trimming | A further 21% to 26% off a small triage agent’s bill | With tool search, accuracy in the same range as without<sup>[27](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#refs)</sup> | Neutral | [Trim input and context tokens](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#trim-input-and-context-tokens) |
863| Tool search | 45% with 500 tool definitions attached; 20% from deferring a GitHub MCP server’s toolset | None for tools the task never needs | Neutral | [Trim input and context tokens](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#trim-input-and-context-tokens) |
864| Data files through code execution | 92% on a data task of 25 questions, with prompt caching off | A gain: 25 of 25 correct instead of 7 | Faster | [Trim input and context tokens](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#trim-input-and-context-tokens) |
865| Batch API | 50% | None | Results within 24 hours | [Batch work that can wait](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#batch-work-that-can-wait) |
866| Prompt audit against the current model | 14% on both model upgrades tested | None; a gain on one | Faster (fewer tool rounds) | [Audit prompts against the current model](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#audit-prompts-against-the-current-model) |
867| Upgrade the model | Usually less: up to 40% less on typical workloads, and up to 87% less per solved task on a coding benchmark | None; a gain on most | Neutral | [Upgrade the model](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#upgrade-the-model) |
868| Lower effort | On long coding tasks, `medium` cost about 30% to 52% less than `high`, and `low` about two thirds less | Up to 34 points lower, depending on the task and the model; 2.5 on one research agent | Faster | [Tune effort](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#tune-effort) |
869| Re-run failures | About 40% less than running everything at `high`, at the same pass rate or slightly better | None | A second attempt on the tasks that fail | [Re-run failures at higher effort](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#re-run-failures-at-higher-effort) |
870| Ask for shorter answers | About 13% less, from 39% fewer output tokens | None | Faster | [Set budgets and output caps](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#set-budgets-and-output-caps) |
871| Raising `max_tokens` | None: cost per solved task stayed about the same | A gain: up to 22 points more tasks solved on one coding benchmark; none on another | Neutral | [Set budgets and output caps](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#set-budgets-and-output-caps) |
872| Advisor | None: about 2.1 times the cost of the model alone, on a coding benchmark | On coding, a small gain that may be chance; on chart reading, a loss | About 1.4 extra calls per attempt, on coding | [Advisor strategy](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#advisor-strategy-escalate-hard-decisions) |
873| Orchestrator | With subagents on the next model down, about a third less than the orchestrator’s model alone at its default effort, on work larger than one context window; on routine work, measure first | No measurable loss on that work | Up to 25 subagents at a time | [Orchestrator strategy](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#orchestrator-strategy-delegate-bulk-work) |
874| Fast mode | None: twice the standard token prices | None | Up to 2.5x higher output tokens per second | [Show the model elapsed time](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#show-the-model-elapsed-time) |
875875
876876### Automate the search with the Claude API skill
877877
from line 949
949949 * **Caching chart:** The caching chart re-prices the same requests with every input token at the uncached rate. The evaluation harness set the cache breakpoints.
950950 * **Comparability:** These scores are not comparable with the benchmark’s leaderboard.
951951
9528. **Corpus defect sweep:** Anthropic-internal, for work larger than one context window: a 21.6-million-token corpus from 14 public Python package sources with 130 planted defects and deterministic grading; protocol fixed before the runs and internally reviewed; three runs per configuration. Every configuration ran on Claude Managed Agents. The charted team configuration is one in which the Claude Fable 5.1 orchestrator ran the whole sweep inside the platform at its documented limit of 25 concurrent Claude Sonnet 5 workers, run August 30, 2026; its three runs scored F1 0.764, 0.825, and 0.791 after the extras audit (raw 0.751, 0.821, and 0.781) for $225 USD, $234 USD, and $283 USD. The team configuration cost about half as much as Claude Fable 5.1 alone at `low`, `medium`, or `high` (47% to 55% less), scored 10 to 12 points below it, and took about 2.3 hours per run, compared with 15 to 20 hours. The team configuration read about 560 million cached tokens per run, nearly all of them at Claude Sonnet 5’s cache-read rate. That is about one and a half times the roughly 365 million that Claude Fable 5.1 read alone. Claude Fable 5.1 alone at `high` effort still holds peak accuracy, at about 2.2 times the team configuration’s cost, so delegation here buys most of the accuracy, not all of it. The configuration with Claude Sonnet 5 alone ran August 3 to 4, 2026; the configurations with Claude Fable 5.1 alone ran August 24 to 25, 2026, under the platform’s launch serving settings, three seeds per effort setting, on the same corpus build. The sandbox image carried installed copies of part of the corpus, and Claude Fable 5.1’s final assembly step compared against them in 7 of 9 runs; re-grading without those additions moved the affected seeds by up to 3 points. Absolute F1 is specific to this corpus build, not comparable across benchmarks; configuration comparisons are like for like.
9528. **Internal defect-search benchmark:**
953953
954 * **What was measured:** Anthropic-internal, for work larger than one context window: a corpus of about 22 million tokens from 14 public Python package sources, in 201 parts, with 130 planted defects and deterministic grading. Ten runs per configuration, on [Claude Managed Agents](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/managed-agents/overview): 51 of the 120 on October 27 to 29, 2026, and 69 on November 2 to 3, 2026.
955 * **Configurations:** Alone, each model ran one session per part, each session given the findings so far: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 5.5 at `low`, `medium`, and `high`, and Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Haiku 5.5 at each model’s default (`high` and `medium`). With subagents, Claude Fable 5.1 or Claude Opus 5.5 ran at `high` as the orchestrator, through [multiagent orchestration](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/managed-agents/multiagent-orchestration) (the `multiagent_20261001` type): one predefined agent as the subagent, at its model’s default effort, called once for each part, up to 25 at a time, with inline agents and dynamic workflows turned off. Every configuration ended with one more session, without subagents, that assembled the findings. Thinking ran at the platform’s default: on, with the model choosing when to think.
956 * **Tools:** Every agent used the benchmark’s own shell and file tools, in an isolated virtual machine. Before any agent started, the evaluation removed installed copies of the corpus’s packages from that machine and checked that no connection from it succeeded.
957 * **Results:** Mean F1 (range) and mean cost per run. Claude Haiku 5.5 alone: 0.577 (0.550 to 0.606), $25 USD. Claude Sonnet 5.5 alone: 0.760 (0.669 to 0.788), $103 USD. Claude Opus 5.5 alone at `low`: 0.489 (0.437 to 0.551), $38 USD; at `medium`: 0.827 (0.797 to 0.850), $200 USD; at `high`: 0.850 (0.829 to 0.876), $236 USD. Claude Fable 5.1 alone at `low`: 0.829 (0.807 to 0.841), $527 USD; at `medium`: 0.839 (0.817 to 0.856), $603 USD; at `high`: 0.847 (0.829 to 0.861), $716 USD. Claude Opus 5.5 with Claude Sonnet 5.5 subagents: 0.831 (0.814 to 0.850), $139 USD; with Claude Haiku 5.5 subagents: 0.677 (0.640 to 0.718), $47 USD. Claude Fable 5.1 with Claude Sonnet 5.5 subagents: 0.825 (0.812 to 0.858), $172 USD; with Claude Haiku 5.5 subagents: 0.687 (0.660 to 0.723), $88 USD. Among the configurations that score above 0.80, every pair of ranges overlaps. Differences in mean F1, with 95% intervals: Claude Opus 5.5 with Claude Sonnet 5.5 subagents scored 0.4 points higher than Claude Opus 5.5 alone at `medium` (1.1 lower to 1.9 higher), 1.9 lower than alone at `high` (0.6 to 3.2), and 7.1 higher than Claude Sonnet 5.5 alone (4.6 to 9.7). Alone, Claude Opus 5.5 scored 2.3 points higher at `high` than at `medium` (0.7 to 3.9). Claude Fable 5.1 alone scored 1.8 points lower at `low` than at `high` (0.8 to 2.8); at `high` it scored 2.0 points higher than Claude Opus 5.5 alone at `medium` (0.7 to 3.4) and 0.3 lower than Claude Opus 5.5 alone at `high` (1.5 lower to 1.0 higher). With Claude Sonnet 5.5 subagents, Claude Fable 5.1 scored 0.6 points lower than Claude Opus 5.5 (1.9 lower to 0.6 higher). The Claude Opus 5.5 pairing cost 31% less than Claude Opus 5.5 alone at `medium` and 41% less than alone at `high`. Alone, Claude Opus 5.5 cost 15% less at `medium` than at `high`. All seven of November’s runs of Claude Sonnet 5.5 alone scored below October’s three (0.669 to 0.775, compared with 0.783 to 0.788); the cause is not known, and every run counts. Claude Fable 5.1 with Claude Haiku 5.5 subagents cost $85.77 USD per run in October and $89.06 USD in November.
958 * **How priced:** The platform’s list cost of each run’s sessions: tokens with prompt caching, plus session runtime. Five of Claude Opus 5.5’s runs at `high` are priced only from their token counts, at 5-minute cache prices, because each ran partly with the 1-hour cache duration, whose cache writes cost more. The cost of an extra check on tool calls, part of the evaluation’s safety setup, is left out.
959
9549609. **GPQA Diamond:** Rein et al., “GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q\&A Benchmark,” 2023. The 198-question Diamond subset, model-graded against reference answers, advisor tokens metered per request. Claude Haiku 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5, each alone and with a Claude Opus 5.5 advisor, and Claude Opus 5.5 alone ran two runs per configuration on October 7, 2026, all with [server-side fallback](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/refusals-and-fallback#server-side-fallback) off, at each model’s default effort, and with refusals counted as wrong. A platform safety check refused one biology question per run on Claude Haiku 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 alone, one in two runs on Haiku 5.5 with the advisor, none on Sonnet 5.5 with the advisor, and six per run on Opus 5.5, which scored 91% with them counted as wrong and 93.5% on the questions it answered. Claude Haiku 5.5 alone scored 85%, 6 points below Opus 5.5. The advisor configurations added the tool without a prompt asking for consultations, and neither executor called the advisor on any question. The pairings scored 0.5 points (Claude Haiku 5.5) and 1.0 points (Claude Sonnet 5.5) above the executor alone, both within run-to-run noise.
955961
95696210. **DeepSWE:** Datacurve, “DeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Tasks,” arXiv:2607.07946, 2026. The set has 113 original tasks across five languages with program-based verifiers. Pairings are two runs each, run August 7, 2026, with advisor tokens metered per request, and used a client-side advisor loop rather than the advisor tool, with identical accounting. Single-model effort sweeps are single runs priced from token counts, a cache-aware approximation. Costs per task are run totals divided by 113. On this benchmark a low-effort Claude Sonnet 5 executor with an advisor scored 23 points above the same executor alone.
from line 1045
10391045 * **Mid-session arm:** The mid-session arm paid $0.23 USD per session in cache re-writes; the difference between the mid-session and boundary arms was $0.20 USD with a 95% confidence interval of $0.11 USD to $0.29 USD. In the mid-session arm, the effort change and the added tool rewrote 39,000 and 60,000 cached tokens. One of its sessions ran cheap ($0.82 USD) after its model mis-called the search tool following compaction and got empty results; it is included, and without it the arm averages $0.98 USD.
10401046 * **Accuracy and cache reads:** Accuracy averaged 14.2 of 20 labels in each August 24 arm and 14.7 in the August 25 arm; cache reads were 91% of prompt tokens with no changes, 85% mid-session, 91% at the boundary, and 86% with the changes on the triggering request.
10411047 * **Separate measurement, status line:** A separate measurement on the 20-issue triage job from [Trim input and context tokens](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/optimizing-for-cost-and-intelligence#trim-input-and-context-tokens), run August 18, 2026, also on Claude Sonnet 5 with the 5-minute cache, priced the same way, three runs per arm: with a 25-token status line at the front of the system prompt, a run cost $4.24 USD on average ($4.12 USD to $4.47 USD across the three runs) and read nothing from the cache; with the same line at the end of the newest user turn, after the last cache breakpoint, a run cost $0.59 USD ($0.55 USD to $0.61 USD). The first is more than the same job cost with caching off. A later re-run with the same configuration gave $4.28 USD and $0.61 USD.
1042 * **Compaction trigger on Claude Haiku 5.5:** Measured October 21, 2026, on the Messages API with [compaction at a token threshold](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/compaction-threshold), no tools, adaptive thinking, the default effort (`medium`), the 5-minute cache, a cache breakpoint on the system prompt, and [automatic caching](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-caching#automatic-caching). Each session was one conversation of 45 requests: a 5,000-token system prompt, 10,000 tokens of filler text with every user turn, and one-word assistant turns, except that a reply with a compaction block was sent back whole. Four settings ran three sessions each: triggers of 150,000 tokens (the default), 90,000, and 50,000 (the lowest allowed), and no compaction. Costs within a setting agreed to within 4%. With the default trigger, 15 of each session’s 45 replies and all 3 summaries had prompts over 100,000 tokens. With a trigger of 90,000, the largest prompt held 97,269 tokens. Compaction ran at the first request whose whole prompt had reached the trigger, counting the system prompt, cache reads, and cache writes. The summary was written from that prompt plus 44 tokens, up to 7,269 tokens over the trigger. Three more sessions, with a 22,000-token system prompt and a trigger of 50,000, showed that the system prompt counts. The summaries were short (184 to 640 output tokens) because the text was filler. The requests ran in one Anthropic-internal organization on the Claude API.
1048 * **Compaction trigger on Claude Haiku 5.5:** Measured October 21, 2026, on the Messages API with [compaction at a token threshold](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/compaction-threshold), no tools, adaptive thinking, the default effort (`medium`), the 5-minute cache, a cache breakpoint on the system prompt, and [automatic caching](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-caching#automatic-caching). Each session was one conversation of 45 requests: a 5,000-token system prompt, 10,000 tokens of filler text with every user turn, and one-word assistant turns, except that a reply with a compaction block was sent back whole. Four settings ran three sessions each: triggers of 150,000 tokens (the default), 90,000, and 50,000 (the lowest allowed), and no compaction. Costs within a setting agreed to within 4%. With the default trigger, 15 of each session’s 45 replies and all 3 summaries had prompts over 100,000 tokens. With a trigger of 90,000, the largest prompt held 97,269 tokens. Compaction ran at the first request whose whole prompt had reached the trigger, counting the system prompt, cache reads, and cache writes. The summary was written from that prompt plus 44 tokens, which together were up to 7,269 tokens over the trigger. Three more sessions, with a 22,000-token system prompt and a trigger of 50,000, showed that the system prompt counts. The summaries were short (184 to 640 output tokens) because the text was filler. The requests ran in one Anthropic-internal organization on the Claude API.
10431049 * **Compaction trigger on Claude Haiku 5.5, how priced:** From the `usage` fields at list prices, a session cost $0.272 USD with the default trigger, $0.082 USD at 90,000, $0.075 USD at 50,000, and $0.729 USD with no compaction. Per request, from the request after the first compaction through the last compaction, the three triggers cost $0.00605 USD, $0.00181 USD, and $0.00166 USD. With every prompt at the prices for prompts up to 100,000 tokens, the default would cost $0.00206 USD per request, and a trigger of 90,000 would save 12%. A compaction’s summary and reply are each priced by their own prompt’s size.
10441050
1045105119. **Cache duration measurement on Claude Fable 5.1:** The same 20-issue triage job and harness as reference 16, with `max_tokens` raised to 4,096, run August 23 and August 26, 2026, on the Claude Fable 5.1 launch snapshot at its launch prices ($10 USD input, $12.50 USD 5-minute write, $20 USD 1-hour write, $0.25 USD cache read, $50 USD output per million tokens), three settings per schedule: the 5-minute cache, the 1-hour cache, and the 5-minute cache kept warm by a `max_tokens: 0` request on the unchanged prefix every 4 minutes, timed from the previous request’s start (the August 23 runs sent keep-alive requests with `max_tokens: 1`; in the August 26 cells reported here, every answered keep-alive request refreshed the cache and its response reported no output tokens). Schedules: no pauses, 10% of turns, and every turn at 6 minutes on all 20 issues, and 45-minute pauses on the 5-issue subset; three runs per cell (six for the August 26 keep-alive cell with 45-minute pauses), cost computed from each response’s `usage` fields at list prices, accuracy against the same gold labels (12 to 18 exact labels of 20). Per-session means on August 26 for the 5-minute, 1-hour, and keep-alive settings: no pauses $2.42 USD, $3.09 USD, $2.29 USD; 10% paused $4.50 USD, $2.96 USD, $2.36 USD; every turn $22.89 USD, $3.01 USD, $2.62 USD; the August 23 cells agree within 6%. The 45-minute figures ($1.68 USD, $0.59 USD, and $0.71 USD per 5-issue session) are from later sessions of August 26: that day’s first set of sessions was cut off when its machine was shut down, and the second was affected by a fault in the service and is set aside. The third set gives the 5-minute and 1-hour figures; its three keep-alive sessions sent each keep-alive request once, lost requests to rate-limit refusals, and are not in the mean. The keep-alive figure is the mean of six further sessions that sent any refused keep-alive request again within two seconds. The August 23 runs gave $1.67 USD, $0.58 USD, and $0.70 USD. The break-even between the 5-minute and 1-hour settings is 3.1% of turns, the same measure as reference 16. Claude Fable 5.1’s cache read costs 0.025x the input price while its cache writes keep the standard multipliers, so a keep-alive request that re-reads the prefix is cheap and the 1-hour duration’s write premium is the larger bill, except with 45-minute pauses, where the keep-alive requests cost more than the premium.