AnthropicClaude Opus 5VSAnthropicClaude Sonnet 4.6
Our Take
Standardized reasoning and coding benchmarks are currently pending verification for one or both of these models. We recommend testing Claude Opus 5 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 directly in their respective provider playgrounds to see which fits your specific prompt styles best.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
79.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+13.8%)
93.7%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
N/Acomplex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
79.9%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.7x cheaper
$6.00Input: $3.00 | Output: $15.00Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is cheaper than Claude Opus 5. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has a blended cost of $6.00/1M tokens, which is about 1.7x cheaper than Claude Opus 5 at $10.00/1M tokens.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 5 and Claude Sonnet 4.6.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.