The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiniCPM-SALA

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 14.4.

Anthropic · OpenBMB · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 14.4, ranking #1 overall.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Opus 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 59.7 and ranks #1 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose MiniCPM-SALA

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic
MiniCPM-SALA
OpenBMB
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
59.7
#1
14.4
#242
Reasoning
57.8
#1
15.7
#227
Coding
51.7
#1
21.0
#98
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$4.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$20.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Opus 5.5
MiniCPM-SALA
Math
42.5#5
14.2#221
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

31 reported for Claude Opus 5.5 · 24 for MiniCPM-SALA

No common benchmarks found

Claude Opus 5.5 and MiniCPM-SALAdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Opus 5.5 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Opus 5.5 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Opus 5.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
OpenBMB
MiniCPM-SALA
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Wed Sep 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Opus 5.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas MiniCPM-SALA does not.

Claude Opus 5.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Opus 5.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MiniCPM-SALA

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 5.5 is licensed under a proprietary license, while MiniCPM-SALA uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Opus 5.5

Proprietary

Closed source

MiniCPM-SALA

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 5.5 was released on 2026-09-22, while MiniCPM-SALA was released on 2026-02-11.

Claude Opus 5.5 is 7 months newer than MiniCPM-SALA.

Claude Opus 5.5

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

7mo newer
MiniCPM-SALA

Feb 11, 2026

7 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Opus 5.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while MiniCPM-SALA's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Claude Opus 5.5's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without MiniCPM-SALA's cutoff date.

Claude Opus 5.5

Jun 2026

MiniCPM-SALA

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 5.5 and MiniCPM-SALA side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 5.5
✓ Preferred
MiniCPM-SALA
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiniCPM-SALA.

Which is better, Claude Opus 5.5 or MiniCPM-SALA?

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 14.4. Claude Opus 5.5 is made by Anthropic and MiniCPM-SALA is made by OpenBMB. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Opus 5.5 compare to MiniCPM-SALA in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores BenchCAD (with Python tool): 96.2%, Global-MMLU: 94.3%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 93.9%, MILU: 93.1%, ArXivMath: 91.2%. MiniCPM-SALA scores HumanEval: 95.1%, RULER 64k: 92.7%, RULER 128k: 89.4%, MBPP: 89.1%, RULER 512K: 87.1%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 5.5 and MiniCPM-SALA?

Claude Opus 5.5 supports 1.0M tokens and MiniCPM-SALA supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 5.5 and MiniCPM-SALA?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (59.7 vs 14.4), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 5.5 and MiniCPM-SALA?

Claude Opus 5.5 is developed by Anthropic and MiniCPM-SALA is developed by OpenBMB.

Related comparisons