Claude Opus 5.5 vs Step 5 Preview

Anthropic · US  |  StepFun · China · Updated June 2026

Quick verdict

Pick Claude Opus 5.5 for performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 or anthropic reports it surpasses fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning. Pick Step 5 Preview for sparse moe architecture — 600b total parameters, only 27b active per token — built for long-horizon agentic work across large codebases and documents or 1m-token context window (64k max output) at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, among the cheapest frontier-scale context windows available. On a tight budget at scale, Step 5 Preview is the value pick.

Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic, US) and Step 5 Preview (StepFun, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Claude Opus 5.5 is anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Step 5 Preview is stepFun's September 20, 2026 flagship preview — a 600B-parameter sparse MoE model (27B active) with a 1M-token context window at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, open weights promised for mid-October. Their biggest split is price, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.

Key differences at a glance

Side-by-side specs

SpecClaude Opus 5.5Step 5 Preview
ProviderAnthropic (US) StepFun (China)
ReleasedSeptember 22, 2026 September 20, 2026
Context window1M tokens (~1,500 pages) 1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)$4/$20 per 1M tokens $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens
Open weight?No — API only No — API only
Modalitiestext, image, code text, image, code
SWE-Bench VerifiedNot published Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot published Not published

Who wins what

Performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5

Claude Opus 5.5

Step 5 Preview is comparatively weak here — trails closed frontier models on coding — 67.7% on DeepSWE v1.1 vs GPT-6 Astra's 74.1% and Claude Opus 5's 74.0%

Anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning

Claude Opus 5.5

Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching — and it is the newer of the two.

Pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok

Claude Opus 5.5

Step 5 Preview is comparatively weak here — a 'Preview' release, not StepFun's finished flagship — positioning and pricing may change once weights ship

Sparse MoE architecture — 600B total parameters, only 27B active per token — built for long-horizon agentic work across large codebases and documents

Step 5 Preview

Claude Opus 5.5 is comparatively weak here — like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window

1M-token context window (64K max output) at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, among the cheapest frontier-scale context windows available

Step 5 Preview

At $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 5.5 ($4/$20 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.

67.7% on DeepSWE v1.1, ahead of open-weight rivals Kimi K3 (67.5%) and GLM-5.3 (66.9%)

Step 5 Preview

StepFun's September 20, 2026 flagship preview — a 600B-parameter sparse MoE model (27B active) with a 1M-token context window at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, open weights promised for mid-October — and it runs cheaper at $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens.

Lowest cost at scale

Step 5 Preview

At $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.

Which should you pick?

A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume

→ Step 5 Preview

At $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 5.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.

Anyone whose priority is performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5

→ Claude Opus 5.5

It is specifically built for that.

Anyone whose priority is sparse moe architecture — 600b total parameters, only 27b active per token — built for long-horizon agentic work across large codebases and documents

→ Step 5 Preview

That is its strongest area.

An enterprise with regional data-residency rules

→ Claude Opus 5.5 or Step 5 Preview

Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.

Claude Opus 5.5: where it fits

Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Released September 22, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5, anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning, pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok, and output speed increased over 30% versus Opus 5.

Its trade-offs are real: not a reasoning-ceiling upgrade over Fable 5.1 — pitched as matching its performance at lower cost, not beating it outright, like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window, and first model in the 5.5 line; Anthropic has signaled Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 are still weeks away, so the lower tiers of the family aren't out yet. At $4 in / $20 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.

Step 5 Preview: where it fits

StepFun's September 20, 2026 flagship preview — a 600B-parameter sparse MoE model (27B active) with a 1M-token context window at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, open weights promised for mid-October. Released September 20, 2026 by StepFun, it is built for sparse MoE architecture — 600B total parameters, only 27B active per token — built for long-horizon agentic work across large codebases and documents, 1M-token context window (64K max output) at $1/$2.70 per million tokens, among the cheapest frontier-scale context windows available, 67.7% on DeepSWE v1.1, ahead of open-weight rivals Kimi K3 (67.5%) and GLM-5.3 (66.9%), and scores 44 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, ranking 27th of 653 models tracked.

Its trade-offs: trails closed frontier models on coding — 67.7% on DeepSWE v1.1 vs GPT-6 Astra's 74.1% and Claude Opus 5's 74.0%, open weights were promised for October 15, 2026 but hadn't shipped as of this writing — API-only for now despite the open-weight roadmap, a 'Preview' release, not StepFun's finished flagship — positioning and pricing may change once weights ship, and stepCodeBench and DeepSWE figures are StepFun's own reported numbers, not yet independently reproduced at scale. At $1 in / $2.7 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.

The bottom line for this matchup

This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Claude Opus 5.5 (US) and Step 5 Preview (China) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Step 5 Preview is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.

Want both Claude Opus 5.5 and Step 5 Preview without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.

See pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Step 5 Preview better for coding?

Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 5.5 leans toward performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 while Step 5 Preview leans toward sparse moe architecture — 600b total parameters, only 27b active per token — built for long-horizon agentic work across large codebases and documents, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Step 5 Preview?

Step 5 Preview is cheaper — $4/$20 per 1M tokens vs $1/$2.7 per 1M tokens, roughly 4× apart on input.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both advertise 1M tokens (~1,500 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.

Can I use both Claude Opus 5.5 and Step 5 Preview together?

Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Opus 5.5, Step 5 Preview and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.

Which is newer, Claude Opus 5.5 or Step 5 Preview?

Claude Opus 5.5 — released September 22, 2026, about 2 days after Step 5 Preview.

Related comparisons

Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.