Claude Opus 5.5 leads GDPx’s AI benchmark across 11 specialized domains

Claude Opus 5.5 takes first place in GDPx v1.0’s displayed results, scoring 12.0 ahead of Gemini 4 Carbon and GPT-6 Astra. The benchmark measures frontier AI models across 206 tasks in 11 domains, bringing fields such as chip design, biology and legal work into a single evaluation.

Gemini 4 Carbon scores 10.9, followed by GPT-6 Astra at 9.6. Muse Wonder Full is next at 9.0, ahead of Claude Fable 5.1 at 8.5 and GPT 6.1 Sol at 8.4. These are the benchmark’s published GDPx scores, rather than an independently verified assessment of the models.

Specialist partners behind the task set

GDPx lists 14 specialized data partners. Some domains have several contributors: chip design has three, while materials science has two. The coverage also reaches cybersecurity, finance, quantitative trading, hardware design, alignment, software engineering and recursive self-improvement. Those sit alongside biology and legal work in the benchmark’s 11-domain comparison.

• Chip design: Aria, Arcverex and Ergodex are listed as partners for the same domain.
• Biology and cybersecurity: LatchBio contributes to the biology domain, while Arithmetic is listed for cybersecurity.
• Materials science and software engineering: ValenceForge and Emulated are the materials partners; Datacurve is listed for software engineering.

206Tasks

GDPx reports 206 tasks in the evaluation.

11Domains

The benchmark spans 11 domains.

14Data partners

The page identifies 14 specialized data partners.

A score table and a cost comparison

The domain-comparison view displays 13 of 20 models, with all 11 domains selected. It lets readers compare models by field rather than relying solely on the overall score. The displayed table ranges from Opus 5.5’s 12.0 to GLM 5.3’s 2.7; it is not the full 20-model selection shown elsewhere on the page.

A separate cost-versus-performance chart plots GDPx score against average cost per task. Its cost axis uses a logarithmic scale, and the interface also offers output tokens as an axis option. That gives the page a resource-use comparison alongside its ranking by score.

One model illustrates the difference between those views. Muse Wonder Full appears in the score table, but GDPx excludes it from the cost chart because it has no public price. Its performance result is therefore visible without a corresponding public cost comparison.