Anthropic claude-opus-4-20250514
Rank #7
Power: 6265.77
View all Lmarena text generation LLM rankings

💡 What is Model Power?

Model Power = how strong and reliable a model is, based on real people's votes. It combines performance scores with user confidence to give you the most accurate assessment of each model's capabilities.

Looking for the right LLM for your needs?

Discover which model is the best and most suitable for your specific use cases. Our comprehensive analysis of Anthropic claude-opus-4-20250514 text generation LLMs reveals the true performance landscape, powered by millions of real user votes and LMarena Pro ranking system. Whether you're building AI applications, content creation, or research projects, find your perfect match from the world's most advanced language models.

👉 Find My Best-Fit LLM
Compare with claude-opus-4-20250514 best text generation LLMs

📊 Comparison with Top 10 Models

This section compares Rank 7 (claude-opus-4-20250514) with the top 10 best performing models. The coefficient shows the performance difference: Positive coefficient = Better than Rank 7, Negative coefficient = Worse than Rank 7. Coefficient = (Model Power - Rank 7 Power) / Rank 7 Power × 100

o3-2025-04-16 OpenAI
According to user voting, the o3-2025-04-16 model is 5.98% percentage better for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #1
+5.98%
gemini-2.5-pro Google
According to user voting, the gemini-2.5-pro model is 5.20% percentage better for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #2
+5.20%
chatgpt-4o-latest-20250326 OpenAI
According to user voting, the chatgpt-4o-latest-20250326 model is 4.60% percentage better for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #3
+4.60%
gemini-2.5-flash Google
According to user voting, the gemini-2.5-flash model is 2.04% percentage better for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #4
+2.04%
grok-3-preview-02-24 xAI
According to user voting, the grok-3-preview-02-24 model is 1.79% percentage better for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #5
+1.79%
claude-3-7-sonnet-20250219-thinking-32k Anthropic
According to user voting, the claude-3-7-sonnet-20250219-thinking-32k model is 0.06% percentage better for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #6
+0.06%
RANK 7
claude-opus-4-20250514 Anthropic
This is the reference model (Rank #7) - all comparisons are relative to this model
Rank #7
0.00%
gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 OpenAI
According to user voting, the gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 model is 0.57% percentage worse for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #8
-0.57%
deepseek-v3-0324 DeepSeek
According to user voting, the deepseek-v3-0324 model is 1.05% percentage worse for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #9
-1.05%
o1-preview OpenAI
According to user voting, the o1-preview model is 1.60% percentage worse for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #10
-1.60%
Compare with claude-opus-4-20250514 similar text generation LLMs

📊 Comparison with Similar Performance Models

This section compares Rank 7 with the 5 best models above it (Ranks 2-6) and 5 worst models below it (Ranks 8-12). The coefficient shows the performance difference relative to Rank 7.

gemini-2.5-pro Google
According to user voting, the gemini-2.5-pro model is 5.20% percentage better for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #2
+5.20%
chatgpt-4o-latest-20250326 OpenAI
According to user voting, the chatgpt-4o-latest-20250326 model is 4.60% percentage better for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #3
+4.60%
gemini-2.5-flash Google
According to user voting, the gemini-2.5-flash model is 2.04% percentage better for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #4
+2.04%
grok-3-preview-02-24 xAI
According to user voting, the grok-3-preview-02-24 model is 1.79% percentage better for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #5
+1.79%
claude-3-7-sonnet-20250219-thinking-32k Anthropic
According to user voting, the claude-3-7-sonnet-20250219-thinking-32k model is 0.06% percentage better for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #6
+0.06%
RANK 7
claude-opus-4-20250514 Anthropic
This is the reference model (Rank #7) - all comparisons are relative to this model
Rank #7
0.00%
gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 OpenAI
According to user voting, the gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 model is 0.57% percentage worse for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #8
-0.57%
deepseek-v3-0324 DeepSeek
According to user voting, the deepseek-v3-0324 model is 1.05% percentage worse for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #9
-1.05%
o1-preview OpenAI
According to user voting, the o1-preview model is 1.60% percentage worse for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #10
-1.60%
claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022 Anthropic
According to user voting, the claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022 model is 2.63% percentage worse for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #11
-2.63%
gpt-4o-mini-2024-07-18 OpenAI
According to user voting, the gpt-4o-mini-2024-07-18 model is 3.43% percentage worse for text generation compared to claude-opus-4-20250514.
Rank #12
-3.43%