// head_to_head

Claude Opus 5 vs Ox Alpha

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Claude Opus 5 scores higher, Ox Alpha costs less — it depends on your workload.

Claude Opus 5 is ahead by 10.8 points overall, and Ox Alpha lists at a lower blended price. Whether 10.8 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. Ox Alpha also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.0000 per point.

anthropic

Claude Opus 5

Blended / 1M
$10.00
Context
1M
Released
Jul 24, 2026
Overall score
80.1
reasoningtool callingimage inputfile inputprompt caching

stealth

Ox Alpha

Blended / 1M
Free
Context
1.0M
Released
Aug 20, 2026
Overall score
69.2
reasoningtool callingimage inputvideo input

Specs and pricing

MetricClaude Opus 5Ox Alpha
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

80.1win69.2
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.3950$0.0000win
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$10.00Freewin
Input price / 1M$5.00Freewin
Output price / 1M$25.00Freewin
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.500
Context window1M1.0M
Max output tokens128K131K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Claude Opus 5 on top, Ox Alpha below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
65.2
52.6
Coding
81.4
75.8
Reasoning
91.2
76.6
Mathematics
95.7
77.5
Data analysis
74.6
75.8
Language
88.7
66.1
Instruction following
63.8
60.3

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadClaude Opus 5Ox Alpha
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$2876.00/mo$0/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$3700.00/mo$0/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$3480.00/mo$0/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$6650.00/mo$0/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$12,750/mo$0/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You are running this at volume

Ox Alpha

Lowest measured cost per point of capability at $0.0000 per point — the gap compounds with every request.

Quality matters more than the bill

Claude Opus 5

Highest overall LiveBench score of the two at 80.1.

The workload is coding or agentic work

Claude Opus 5

Leads on agentic coding — 65.2 against 52.6.

Claude Opus 5 vs Ox Alpha FAQ

Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Ox Alpha?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher, Ox Alpha costs less — it depends on your workload. Claude Opus 5 is ahead by 10.8 points overall, and Ox Alpha lists at a lower blended price. Whether 10.8 points is worth that depends on how much a wrong answer costs you. Ox Alpha also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.0000 per point.

Is Claude Opus 5 cheaper than Ox Alpha?

Ox Alpha is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Claude Opus 5 lists at $10.00 per million tokens and Ox Alpha at Free. Input and output are priced separately — Claude Opus 5 charges $5.00 in and $25.00 out, Ox Alpha charges Free and Free — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

Claude Opus 5 vs Ox Alpha: which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5 scores 80.1 and Ox Alpha scores 69.2 overall on LiveBench, the mean of its seven categories. That is a 10.8-point lead for Claude Opus 5. Category scores differ from the overall figure — a model can lead on reasoning and trail on coding, which the per-category table above breaks out.

Which gives better value for money, Claude Opus 5 or Ox Alpha?

Ox Alpha. Cost per point divides the measured dollars LiveBench spent running the benchmark by the score it earned, so it captures something token pricing misses: a reasoning model can emit many times more tokens than its per-token rate suggests. Claude Opus 5 works out at $0.3950 per point and Ox Alpha at $0.0000.

Does Claude Opus 5 or Ox Alpha have a bigger context window?

They are effectively the same — 1M for Claude Opus 5 and 1.0M for Ox Alpha.

Do Claude Opus 5 and Ox Alpha support prompt caching?

Claude Opus 5 publishes a cached-input rate of $0.500 per million tokens against a full input rate of $5.00. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Ox Alpha, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.