Claude · Last 7 days
Claude Opus 5.5
0–100 · higher means more positive community experience, not benchmark performance.
Updated 2026-10-03 14:32 UTC · 2026-09-26 – 2026-10-03 UTCDiscussion overview
What the full sample discusses
All platforms · 803 eligible comments over 7 days, including usage-limit feedback; deduplicated by source and comment.
- General text · 314 comments: 210 positive / 67 negative / 37 mixed or neutral
- Reasoning · 222 comments: 196 positive / 17 negative / 9 mixed or neutral
- Speed & latency · 109 comments: 77 positive / 20 negative / 12 mixed or neutral
- Usage limits · 98 comments: 52 positive / 28 negative / 18 mixed or neutral
Comments may cover multiple dimensions; counts are not additive or equivalent to the weighted score. Links show selected source excerpts.
Recent change
Rolling 7-day score: −5.9 points vs 7 days ago. Discussion mix can affect scores; this does not establish a cause.
Source coverage and discussion concentration
Hacker News 86 · Reddit 652 · v2ex 1 · RedNote 5 · Zhihu 59
325 identifiable discussions cover 717/803 comments; the largest has 29. Remaining thread identities are unknown; this is not a count of independent users.
Selected individual opinions
One user considers Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Opus 5.5 great models, while questioning why to pay for Kimi over Claude. One user measured that running the verify command as a second turn on Opus 5.5 took 125 seconds versus 75 seconds for plain usage.
About the sample and scores
As of 2026-10-03 14:32:03 UTC, Claude Opus 5.5 in the Claude family has 803 explicitly attributed community comments in the last 7 days; its community score is 77.8/100. Available category scores include General text 73.7/100 (n=314); Coding 82.0/100 (n=79); Reasoning 89.4/100 (n=222). Scoring method and sources
RECENT EXPERIENCE
How the Experience Index is changing
30 days of rolling 7-day scores at each daily snapshot. The vertical scale adapts to the data. Missing or insufficient samples leave gaps; today is still updating.
Tap or use ← → for dates, scores and sample sizes. Blank dates have insufficient data.
Daily readings & sample sizes
| Date | Score | n | Scoring window (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-03 | 79.7 | 58 | 2026-09-26T14:32:03+00:00 – 2026-10-03T14:32:03+00:00 |
| 2026-10-02 | 80.1 | 60 | 2026-09-25T23:57:03+00:00 – 2026-10-02T23:57:03+00:00 |
| 2026-10-01 | 81.6 | 59 | 2026-09-24T23:57:02+00:00 – 2026-10-01T23:57:02+00:00 |
| 2026-09-30 | 84.1 | 58 | 2026-09-23T23:57:03+00:00 – 2026-09-30T23:57:03+00:00 |
| 2026-09-29 | 83.8 | 64 | 2026-09-22T23:57:03+00:00 – 2026-09-29T23:57:03+00:00 |
| 2026-09-28 | 84.2 | 65 | 2026-09-21T23:57:03+00:00 – 2026-09-28T23:57:03+00:00 |
| 2026-09-27 | 82.7 | 41 | 2026-09-20T23:57:03+00:00 – 2026-09-27T23:57:03+00:00 |
| 2026-09-26 | 84.5 | 34 | 2026-09-19T23:57:03+00:00 – 2026-09-26T23:57:03+00:00 |
| 2026-09-25 | 82.9 | 30 | 2026-09-18T23:57:03+00:00 – 2026-09-25T23:57:03+00:00 |
| 2026-09-24 | 81.0 | 26 | 2026-09-17T23:57:03+00:00 – 2026-09-24T23:57:03+00:00 |
| 2026-09-23 | 76.2 | 19 | 2026-09-16T23:57:03+00:00 – 2026-09-23T23:57:03+00:00 |
Zhihu · 79.7 · 58 scored comments · Read platform reviews →
ONE MODEL, DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES
Across the communities
Scored separately for each platform, with different samples and audiences. Platform scores are not simply averaged; scored counts exclude quota-only comments.
Scores range from 0 to 100. Select a platform for its trend and reviews. Latest opinion time is not crawler health.
Explore long-term changes & analysis
This version is not yet tracked since release; recent 7-day experience is shown above.
Community reviews
Selected comments from the last 7 days. The balance of excerpts does not represent the share of positive reviews.
0 selected excerpts
Community reports about limits cannot establish official allowances.
Comment context
Measured my own burn before changing plans: running the verify command as a second turn cost $0.96 a task against $0.39 plain on Opus 5.5, 125 s against 75 s.
Comment context
Opus 5.5 Vs GLM 5.3
I am developing a React Native app and need more usage.
Comment context
I switched over to Sonnet 5.5 and it needs a bit more hand holding, but the usage rate is superior to Opus 5.5.
Comment context
My workflow is now simple. I use my vibe coded app, create a bunch of issues on github, and when ready I run my skill /issues. This skill fetches all issues, groups them, and works on them all by priority, asks me when necessary. When done it automatically analyzes the session and adds helpful scripts and CLAUDE.md changes to be more efficient next time. It's awesome, I've never been more productive.
Comment context
What’s with GPT 6.1 and Opus 5.5 both refusing to type passwords for smoke tests? I’ve got a local environment setup for my testing and staging environment, I explain to both Claude and GPT it’s all local and a staging environment and both models refuse to make up passwords for test accounts I want them to walk through and create. They both keep stopping and asking me to do it.
Show original
路由的claude opus 5.5 没有争议，已经取关了。 什么，你说opus 5.5思考速度没那么快？
Comment context
For example if you have Opus 5 process a bunch of reviews from an subagent fanout that is reviewing code, then synthesizing those into a final report. It keeps more of the actual defects vs 5.5, by a small margin. But it also keeps more false positive and takes about twice as long and twice as many tokens as 5.5
Comment context
Everyone is praising Opus but it flags even simple html fixes, GLM never let me down! I was playing with Opus 5.5 asking to improve the marketing texts on our html pages, and suddenly it started to reject it
Comment context
Opus 5.5 (O5.5) has been exceptional for me in Claude Code over the last six days. Architecture-first, DRY/SOLID coding out of the box, exceptional communication style, phenomenal token efficiency. I’ve been working with it basically nonstop, ~12 hours a day, since last Wednesday. But right around the time my monthly limit reset this evening, I noticed an extreme shift in communication style and coding behavior that feels suspiciously like Opus 5 (O5). For the last week, O5.5 would take my requirements and immediately get to work, usually knocking out a feature in minutes and doing an incredible job across implementation, UX, architecture, and token efficiency. Tonight, I’m seeing something very different.
Where O5.5 consistently respected DRY principles and the existing architecture, the modules created tonight are suddenly happy to reinvent every wheel that came before them. The difference in ability is not subtle. The other tell is token usage. O5.5 has been startlingly efficient compared with O5, which was an absolute token-eating monster. I’ve been getting substantially more feature work done with O5.5 at a fraction of the token usage. Tonight, simple tasks and relatively small features are suddenly devouring tokens at a pace that feels much more like O5. I’m especially sensitive to this because I have to request an increase in my spend limit every time I hit it. On O5, I was sending a request almost every day. On O5.5, I hadn’t needed to send a single one all week. Then tonight I jumped from roughly 70% to 90% usage in about an hour.
Comment context
SOL 5.6 and 6.1 both are monsters for high level backend coding.
Show original
这个确实牛逼在， Claude 整出来的这个算法研究本身，看起来确实有些新东西
Comment context
It started from one prompt I typed into Claude Code: "*using only pixels directly remake a beautiful pokemon red remake … absolute pixel art perfection.
* No image files at all. The game draws into a 320×180 screen pixel by pixel.
No selected comments for this filter in the last 7 days.