Compare / Claude Opus 5.5 vs Particle-1
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Particle-1
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 75 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5
Particle AIParticle-1
Claude Opus 5.5 wins 4520 too close to callParticle-1 wins 10
Of the 75 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 5 November 2026 (catalogue release 2026-11-05-44c5fb63d296).
Claude Opus 5.5 or Particle-1? The short answer
Pick Claude Opus 5.5 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 84 against 33). Pick Particle-1 if cost matters more: it costs 34 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Opus 5.5 84, Particle-1 33 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Particle-1 is cheaper to run: $0.001 against $0.040 per product listing on CatalogBench (34 times less).
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Opus 5.5 does better for product listings, decks from an analysis, user surveys and marketing planning.
Head to head
84
Spring Prompt overall
33
$8.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.16
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Particle-1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $4.00 in · $20.00 out | $0.050 in · $0.50 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $8.00 | $0.16 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $8.00 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.040 | $0.001 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.20 cached input | – |
| Intelligence Index | 57.6 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 84 | 33 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 96 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 22 Sep 2026 | – |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | – |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
10 of 27
26 of 27
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
4 of 28
15 of 28
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
3 of 17
7 of 17
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
7 of 28
14 of 28
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
2 of 160
not measured
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
3 of 51
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
1 of 188
not measured
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
5 of 173
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
3 of 143
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
32 of 32
32 of 32
Their slides, side by side
The same brief for both: Manchester store investment review for Hearthside Coffee, an invented company. First slide of each deck from DeckBench.
From our research
- AI Checkpoint: Argon matches Opus, until it sells 16 Oct 2026
- Gemini 4 Argon review: Opus-level product data at a quarter of the cost, until you ask it to sell 14 Oct 2026
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Wonder Full: Eight Crafts, and Opus Still Wins Most 13 Oct 2026
- Muse Wonder review: good analysis, work that still needs checking 13 Oct 2026
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Claude Opus 5.5 | Particle-1 |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 25 · 3 of 28 measured | $0.0400 | $0.0012 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 8 · 26 of 27 measured | 55.4% | 0.0% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 10 · 22 of 27 measured | 21.4% | 0.0% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 24 · 2 of 28 measured | $0.26 | $0.0086 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 4 · 15 of 28 measured | 1,391 | 1,163 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 19 of 28 measured | 83.3% | 16.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 7 · 14 of 28 measured | 51.7 | 43.3 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 5 · 13 of 28 measured | 67.7 | 65.1 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 7 · 13 of 28 measured | 52.3 | 39.0 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Analysis ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 3 · 7 of 17 measured | 1,486 | 1,193 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 16 · 1 of 17 measured | $0.46 | $0.0140 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 3 · 6 of 17 measured | 95.3 | 88.4 |
Show all 75 results (63 more)
| Measure | Claude Opus 5.5 | Particle-1 |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 26 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 15 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 14 · 14 of 28 measured | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 6 · 13 of 28 measured | 97.9% | 97.1% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 9 · 19 of 28 measured | 97.8% | 96.1% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 8 · 13 of 28 measured | 97.7% | 96.8% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 23 · 13 of 28 measured | 92.2% | 93.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 4 · 14 of 28 measured | 0.5% | 1.7% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 7 · 1 of 28 measured | 3.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 5 · 1 of 28 measured | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 7 · 27 of 28 measured | 70.8% | 0.0% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 12 · 26 of 28 measured | 34.5% | 0.0% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 15 · 20 of 28 measured | 16.9 | 23.5 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 14 · 15 of 28 measured | 17.3% | 19.6% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 11 · 16 of 28 measured | 0.45 | 0.71 |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 13 · 17 of 28 measured | 1.66 | 2.36 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 15 · 12 of 28 measured | 60.1% | 49.4% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 7 · 19 of 28 measured | 15.5% | 19.6% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 9 · 14 of 28 measured | 15.5% | 17.9% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 5 · 5 of 28 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 5 · 5 of 28 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 14 · 1 of 28 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 3 · 22 of 28 measured | 83.3% | 16.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 9 · 22 of 28 measured | 72.0% | 54.4% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 21 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 3 · 15 of 28 measured | 86.6% | 51.7% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 22 of 28 measured | 16.7% | 83.3% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 13 of 28 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 16 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 20 · 8 of 28 measured | 66.7% | 33.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 13 · 17 of 28 measured | 98.5 | 154 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 9 · 15 of 28 measured | 33.8 | 27.8 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 2 · 9 of 28 measured | $911,566 | $684,624 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 25 · 3 of 28 measured | $1.06 | $0.0234 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 25 of 28 measured | 54.7 | 54.3 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 4 · 13 of 28 measured | $0.69 | $0.51 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 17 results | ||
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 1 · 8 of 17 measured | 82.5% | 50.0% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 3 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 6 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 22.2% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 17 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 8 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 2 · 7 of 17 measured | 96.1 | 89.7 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 2 · 6 of 17 measured | 55.6% | 22.2% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 1 · 6 of 17 measured | 97.8 | 92.6 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 12 of 17 measured | 11.1% | 33.3% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 10 · 13 of 17 measured | 180 | 252 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 2 · 2 of 17 measured | 95.7% | 95.7% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 3 of 17 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 4 · 7 of 17 measured | 22.2% | 55.6% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 3 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Particle-1?
Pick Claude Opus 5.5 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 84 against 33). Pick Particle-1 if cost matters more: it costs 34 times less per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Particle-1?
Particle-1 is cheaper to run: $0.001 against $0.040 per product listing on CatalogBench (34 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Opus 5.5 or Particle-1?
Claude Opus 5.5 ranks 10 of 27 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 26 for Particle-1.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Opus 5.5 or Particle-1?
Claude Opus 5.5 ranks 4 of 28 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 15 for Particle-1.
Which is better for user surveys, Claude Opus 5.5 or Particle-1?
Claude Opus 5.5 ranks 3 of 17 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 7 for Particle-1.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Opus 5.5 or Particle-1?
Claude Opus 5.5 ranks 7 of 28 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 14 for Particle-1.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 5.5 or Particle-1?
Particle-1: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Opus 5.5.
Run Claude Opus 5.5 and Particle-1 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.