Simba 3.2vsClaude Opus 5

Simba 3.2 leads the overall Podium Score by 6.4 points (87.8 vs 81.4).Category wins: Simba 3.2 2 — 2 Claude Opus 5.Simba 3.2 is the cheaper pick ($10/M vs $25/M per 1M output tokens). Simba 3.2 is faster (62 t/s vs 60 t/s).

Open in Compare Tool →View Simba 3.2View Claude Opus 5
Simba 3.2Drag slider or hover to compareClaude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5
81.4
Coding: 70.4 · Speed: 60 t/s
Output Price: $25/M
Simba 3.2
87.8
Coding: 62.0 · Speed: 62 t/s
Output Price: $10/M
Quick VerdictAggregated 2026 Benchmark Analysis

Simba 3.2 is rated higher overall with a Podium Score of 87.8 (vs 81.4 for Claude Opus 5). Both models show closely matched capabilities across domain benchmarks.

Coding & Engineering
Claude Opus 5 (70.4)
Inference Speed
Simba 3.2 (62 t/s)
Cost Efficiency
Simba 3.2 ($10/M)
API Price / 1M (in · out)
Simba 3.2 $2/M · $10/M — Claude Opus 5 $5/M · $25/M

Choose Simba 3.2 for complex reasoning and analysis, and Claude Opus 5 for long documents and large codebases.

MetricSimba 3.2Claude Opus 5
Podium Score87.8 ▲81.4
Arena Elo14001492 ▲
Intelligence Index62.0 ▲61.0
Coding62.070.4 ▲
Math84.0—
Reasoning88.0 ▲82.3
Agentic70.0—
Knowledge50.0 ▲37.1
Multimodal55.0—
Long-context75.099.2 ▲
Output speed62 t/s ▲60 t/s
Output price$10/M ▲$25/M
Context window262K1000K ▲
Scores aggregated from five independent leaderboards. See Methodology. More head-to-heads: Simba 3.2 vs Claude Mythos · Simba 3.2 vs Claude 5.5 Sonnet · Simba 3.2 vs Kimi K3.1 Pro · Simba 3.2 vs Eleven Multilingual v3
0 / 4
Compare Now →