Claude Opus 4.6 vs Jamba 1.7 Mini
Wins 6 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 19 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Opus 4.63 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up30Claude Opus 4.63 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Opus 4.62 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Claude Opus 4.61 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.61 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Opus 4.61 of 1 test
Agents, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Opus 4.6 pulls ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+62points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+57.4points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+42.6points ahead
Where Jamba 1.7 Mini pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 19 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.6
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Opus 4.6 by 46.246.20+46.2
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.6 by 42.651.99.3+42.6
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.6
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.6 by 57.489.632.2+57.4
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.6 by 35.539.94.4+35.5
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.6 by 12.612.60+12.6
FactsClaude Opus 4.6
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.6 by 35.74711.3+35.7
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.6 by 32.337.24.9+32.3
- Vectara HHEM hallucination ratelower is betterClaude Opus 4.6 by 2.512.214.7+2.5
Following instructionsClaude Opus 4.6
- IFBenchClaude Opus 4.6 by 21.753.131.4+21.7
Other results8 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.6 by 86.813.7-73.1+86.8
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Opus 4.6 by 79.592.112.6+79.5
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.6 by 63.467.64.2+63.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.6 by 4548.13.1+45
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.6 by 26.731.95.2+26.7
- vectara_factual_consistencyClaude Opus 4.6 by 2.587.885.3+2.5
- vectara_answer_ratetie99.899.1tie
- vectara_avg_summary_lengthtie137.6136.4tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Jamba 1.7 Mini?
Claude Opus 4.6 wins all six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Jamba 1.7 Mini wins none.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Jamba 1.7 Mini wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 19 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 8 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.