Compare / head-to-head

Claude Opus 5.5vsJamba Large 1.7

Claude Opus 5.5 and Jamba Large 1.7 do not yet share a public benchmark, so quality cannot be compared apples-to-apples. Jamba Large 1.7 is 2.4x cheaper per token. Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger context window (1M tokens).

Benchmarks from cited public sources; pricing from official pages; status from official provider feeds.

Shared benchmarks
0
no overlap yet
Cheaper per token
Jamba Large 1.7
2.4x cheaper, input + output
Larger context
Claude Opus 5.5
1M tokens
Providers
2 providers
Anthropic · AI21 Labs
Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic · released 2026-09-22
textvision
Context
1M
Max out
128K
Input /1M
$4 ↗
Output /1M
$20 ↗
Cached /1M
$0.2
Scores
34 · 9 core
Jamba Large 1.7
AI21 Labs · released 2025-07-03
text
Context
256K
Max out
4K
Input /1M
$2 ↗
Output /1M
$8 ↗
Cached /1M
—
Scores
2 · 0 core
Quality

Benchmark matrix

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Jamba Large 1.7ΔEdge
Reported by both · 0
No public benchmark is reported for both models yet.
Only Claude Opus 5.5 reports · 34
GPQA Diamond90.6% ↗epoch runnot reported——
LMArena Elo1503.7 ↗not reported——
APEX-Agents (Mercor)73.5% ↗not reported——
AutomationBench 1.0.640% ↗not reported——
Chartography (with tools)89% ↗not reported——
CursorBench 4.057.8% ↗not reported——
EBR-bench (Epoch AI run)71.4% ↗epoch runnot reported——
FrontierCode v1.1 (Main)54.4% ↗not reported——
FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 (Epoch AI run)95% ↗epoch runnot reported——
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (Epoch AI run)91.2% ↗epoch runnot reported——
FrontierSWE V2 (Proximal Labs)62.3% ↗not reported——
Furniture Assembly (Epoch AI run)83.3% ↗epoch runnot reported——
GDPval-AA v2.11846 ↗not reported——
Humanity's Last Exam (with tools)67.7% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Agentic Coding (LiveBench)71.7% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Coding (LiveBench)89.3% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Data Analysis (LiveBench)80.3% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Instruction Following (LiveBench)67% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Language (LiveBench)86.3% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Mathematics (LiveBench)97.1% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Reasoning (LiveBench)92.2% ↗not reported——
LMArena Agent (LMArena)0.1382 ↗not reported——
LMArena WebDev (LMArena)1815.4 ↗not reported——
MirrorCode (Epoch AI run)77.4% ↗epoch runnot reported——
Mystery Game Puzzles (Epoch AI run)71% ↗epoch runnot reported——
OSWorld 2.0 (partial)81.8% ↗not reported——
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 (Epoch AI run)100% ↗epoch runnot reported——
SAGE (Vals AI)45.8% ↗not reported——
SimpleBench (SimpleBench)88.4% ↗not reported——
SimpleQA Verified72.2% ↗epoch runnot reported——
Terminal-Bench 4.066.4% ↗not reported——
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals AI)65.2% ↗not reported——
Terminal-Bench Science 0.158.7% ↗not reported——
Vending-Bench 2 (Andon Labs)9235.25 ↗not reported——
Only Jamba Large 1.7 reports · 2
FACTSnot reported83.2% ↗——
IFEvalnot reported84% ↗——
Scores tagged "epoch" or "matharena" are independent runs, used only where the lab has not published its own; ⚠ marks rows MathArena flags as released after the competition. Higher is better on every row. Δ is Claude Opus 5.5 minus Jamba Large 1.7 in the benchmark's own unit. "Not reported" means the lab has not published that figure; it is not a zero. ↗ opens the source.
Specs & pricing

Side by side

SpecClaude Opus 5.5Jamba Large 1.7Edge
Context window1M tokens256K tokensClaude Opus 5.5
Max output128K tokens4K tokensClaude Opus 5.5
Input price / 1M$4 ↗$2 ↗Jamba Large 1.7
Output price / 1M$20 ↗$8 ↗Jamba Large 1.7
Cached input / 1M$0.2 ↗——
Input + output / 1M
Lower is cheaper. List prices; batch, tool and regional fees excluded.
$24$10Jamba Large 1.7
Modalitiestext · visiontextClaude Opus 5.5
Released2026-09-222025-07-03—
Cited benchmark scores342—
Reliability

Provider status

All providers →
More matchups

Claude Opus 5.5 vs …

Built by Respan
Which one wins on your data?

Public benchmarks are a starting point. Run Claude Opus 5.5 and Jamba Large 1.7 on your own prompts with Respan evals, or route to either through one gateway key with automatic failover.