Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) vs Beam 1.0
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Beam 1.0 by Reflection? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 23.3 points higher (53.6 vs 30.3) but costs 6.8× as much to run the benchmark ($2172 vs $319; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 30.3, and Beam 1.0 when 30.3 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) | Beam 1.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 53.6 | 30.3 | −43.5% Beam 1.0 is 43.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,172.43 | $318.73 | −85.3% Beam 1.0 is 85.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 33.81s | 8.02s | −76.3% Beam 1.0 is 76.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.40 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Beam 1.0 vs Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback): 43.5% less intelligence, 85.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 76.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Beam 1.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback)Beam 1.0Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-high/reflection-beam · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-high/reflection-beam?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill