WritingmateWritingmate
Model Comparison

Claude Opus 5 vs mischief 1Which Is Better in 2026?

Anthropic: Claude Opus 5 logoAnthropic•
Tbc

Claude Opus 5 vs mischief 1: which should you choose in 2026?

Claude Opus 5 (by Anthropic) and mischief 1 (by Tbc) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.

Choose Claude Opus 5 if…

  • • you need a model with explicit reasoning support

Choose mischief 1 if…

  • • you need video generation

The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.

Chat with both models
vs

Performance benchmarks

Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.

Claude Opus 5 and mischief 1 benchmark results
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5mischief 1
AutomationBench-AA

A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework.

Guardrail-aware score

——
BrowseComp

A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing.

Accuracy

——
OSWorld-Verified

A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state.

Mean task reward

83.4%
OSWorld
—
DeepSWE 1.1

A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests.

Pass@1

74.0%±4.0
DataCurve
—
SWE-Bench Verified

A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests.

Resolved

——
Terminal-Bench 2.1

Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol.

Mean task success

——
AutoBench

A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench.

Weighted peer-assessment score

——
GPQA Diamond

The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry.

Accuracy

93.2%
Artificial Analysis
—
Humanity's Last Exam

A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged.

Accuracy

54.9%
Artificial Analysis
—
LiveBench

A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol.

Mean of category averages

80.1%
LiveBench
—

Benchmark sources

Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.

Pricing, capabilities, and model facts

Claude Opus 5 and mischief 1 model facts
FeatureClaude Opus 5mischief 1
Context & model facts
DeveloperAnthropicTbc
API providerAnthropicTBC
Input context1,000,000 tokens—
Maximum output128,000 tokens—
Released——
Added to WritingmateJul 24, 2026Oct 30, 2026
LicenseNot availableNot available
Knowledge cutoff——
Capabilities
InputsText, Image, FileText, Image
OutputsTextVideo
Provider endpoint accepts tool parametersYesNo
ReasoningYesNo
VisionYesYes
Image GenerationNoNo
Video GenerationNoYes
API performance
p95 latencyNot measuredNot measured
Output throughputNot measuredNot measured
Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table.

Data sources

  • Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)

Catalog data last updated Oct 30, 2026.

Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?

Comparing Claude Opus 5 from Anthropic with mischief 1 from Tbc? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.

Subscription-plan access for Claude Opus 5 and mischief 1
PlanPriceClaude Opus 5mischief 1AI ImagesAI Video
Writingmate Pro
Most popular
$20/moUltimate requiredIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreVEO 3.1, Kling 3.0
Writingmate Ultimate
Power users
$60/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreVEO 3.1, Kling 3.0
View Plans & Pricing

Claude Opus 5 vs mischief 1 FAQ

Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or mischief 1?

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.

Which model is cheaper to use through an API?

A comparable blended token price is not available for both models. Check the API pricing rows for the values that are currently published.

Which model supports more context?

Comparable context-window data is not available for both models.

Can I switch between Claude Opus 5 and mischief 1?

Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.