Cost
$0.56per task
Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted. Run at reasoning on.
Claude Sonnet model by Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 4.5
An earlier Claude Sonnet release. Anthropic deprecated it on September 30, 2026 and retires it on its own platform on November 30, 2026; it still runs there until then, and Anthropic recommends Claude Sonnet 5.5 in its place. Other routes keep their own dates: Amazon Bedrock lists it as Legacy until April 8, 2027, and GitHub Copilot retired it on September 1, 2026.
Where it sits in Anthropic's lineup
- Claude HaikuAnthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.Claude Haiku 5.5
- Claude SonnetAnthropic's balanced Claude model family.You are on Claude Sonnet 4.5. Current:Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Claude OpusAnthropic's high-capability Claude model family.Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude FableAnthropic's Claude family for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.Claude Fable 5.1
- Offered in
- 4 products
- Made by
- Anthropic
- Family
- Claude Sonnet, version 4.5
- Released
- Sep 29, 2025 Deprecated
- Lifecycle
- Deprecated Sep 30, 2026. Retires Nov 30, 2026, per Anthropic.
- Claude API, Claude Platform on AWS, Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) and Microsoft Foundry: Anthropic's deprecation and retirement dates apply, per Anthropic.
- Amazon Bedrock: Legacy, with end of life on Apr 8, 2027, per AWS.
- Google Cloud Vertex AI (Google managed): Generally available, per Google Cloud.
- Microsoft Foundry: Listed as GA, hosted on Anthropic infrastructure, per Microsoft.
- GitHub Copilot: Retired on Sep 1, 2026, per GitHub.
- In its family
- Release 1 of 4 in Claude Sonnet. The newest is Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Strengths and weaknesses
Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Claude Sonnet 4.5
Suggested comparisons
The models a buyer weighs against Claude Sonnet 4.5, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Ranked against the 40 current releases on this chart, Claude Sonnet 4.5's best rank is 23rd of 31 on Factuality. It ranks lowest on Math, 29th of 29 and Hard reasoning, 38th of 39. Agentic coding and Computer use: not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026.
Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero.
On the chart
- Claude Sonnet 4.5This pageResults on 10 of 12 axes$3 / $1552 tokens/sFirst token in 14 s
Prices and speeds read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 on each axis10 of 12 with a result
The share of Terminal-Bench 4.0's long terminal tasks the model finishes on its own: services, kernels, proofs and data pipelines, graded on the final artifact with no partial credit.
Terminal-Bench 4.0, pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness
- Claude Sonnet 4.5Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of SciCode's scientific programming subproblems the model's code solves on the first attempt.
SciCode, subproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
The share of FrontierMath's held-out research-grade problems (tiers 1 to 3) the model answers correctly.
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%Epoch AI's run with a 32K-token thinking budget.
The share of GPQA Diamond's graduate-level biology, chemistry and physics questions the model answers correctly.
GPQA Diamond, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%Epoch AI's run with a 59K-token thinking budget. With thinking off it scores 73.7.
The share of Humanity's Last Exam's 2,158 text-only questions, expert-written at the edge of human knowledge, the model answers correctly without tools.
Humanity's Last Exam, accuracy, text-only questions, no tools
- Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
The share of each AutomationBench task's objectives the model completes by calling REST APIs across simulated business apps (Gmail, Sheets, Slack, Salesforce, Zendesk, Jira, HubSpot), averaged over tasks. A task that breaks one of its policy guardrails scores zero.
AutomationBench-AA, score, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
How much of each OSWorld 2.1 workflow the model completes by operating a real Ubuntu desktop through screenshots, mouse and keyboard: all 108 long tasks across apps, files, mail and browsers, on the September 2026 v2.1 release of the task files. A point is the mean share of each task's weighted checks the model passes (the partial score, as a percentage). The OSWorld team's own runs come first. Where the team has not run a release, the point is another lab's run or the maker's own published figure, marked with who ran it and the benchmark it ran: OSWorld 2.1 in the maker's harness, OSWorld 2.0's offline set or the earlier OSWorld-Verified. Those points are drawn so the release has a figure, and they are not ranked against the team's runs.
OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release
- Claude Sonnet 4.5Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of AA-LCR's questions the model answers correctly by reasoning across long sets of real documents, about 100K tokens each.
AA-LCR v1.1, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
The share of MMMU-Pro's college-level questions over charts, diagrams and photos the model answers correctly.
MMMU-Pro, overall accuracy, no tools
- Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
The share of AA-Omniscience's 6,000 knowledge questions across 42 economically relevant topics the model answers correctly from memory, without search.
AA-Omniscience Accuracy, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%Hallucination rate 49.1% in the same run (lower is better)
The share of SpeechMap's 2,120 sensitive and controversial but legal requests the model answers in full: arguments, essays and explanations on contested themes in politics, religion, race, sex, history and similar topics, four wordings per theme across 530 themes. SpeechMap's judge rates each response complete, evasive (hedged or redirected), a denial, or an error (the provider's API blocked the request). Only complete answers count, so the point is the share answered in full: 100 minus the share hedged, refused or blocked by the provider. Higher means more lawful requests answered in full. The share blocked at the provider is printed apart in the table, because an API error is not the model declining. Where SpeechMap runs a release both with reasoning off and with reasoning on (a -reasoning or -thinking entry), the reasoning-on entry is used; a release with one entry uses that entry.
SpeechMap, % Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry
- Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%With reasoning on, SpeechMap counted 48.3% of requests denied and 20.2% evaded. With reasoning off, the model completes 32.3%.
The share of MultiChallenge's multi-turn conversations in which the model keeps every instruction it was given earlier in the conversation.
MultiChallenge, accuracy, Scale AI run
- Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%On Oct 28, 2026, Scale AI ranked it 25th, with extended thinking on.Plus or minus 1.47 points (95% interval)
Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Claude Sonnet 4.5, with where each figure sits among the 41 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.
Speed
48tokens a second
Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at reasoning off.
- First token
- 1.0 s
- Whole answer
- 23 s
Capacity
200Ktokens
Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.
- Max output
- 64K
- Reads
- Text, Images
Quality
19.3of 100
Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at reasoning off.
- GDPval knowledge work
- 907 Elo
- Terminal-Bench 4.0
- 0.0%
- Epoch Capabilities Index
- 147
Hallucination
49.1%wrong when it should say “I don’t know”
Hallucination rate. Of the questions it can't get right, how often it answers anyway. Lower is better. Run at reasoning on.
- Knowledge accuracy
- 32.9%
Where you can get it
13of 19 routes
Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.
- Open weights
- No
- Licence
- Commercial Terms of Service
Figures from Artificial Analysis, Anthropic, Epoch AI and GILD's route matrix, read Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for Claude Sonnet 4.5: Cached input.
Every value with its benchmark, run and source
| Axis | Benchmark and setting | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Run | Source | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic coding | Terminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness | Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Code | SciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 45.7% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning)Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Math | FrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run. Epoch AI's run with a 32K-token thinking budget. | 23.9% | Effort: 32K thinking budget. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Sep 29, 2025 |
| Science | GPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run. Epoch AI's run with a 59K-token thinking budget. With thinking off it scores 73.7. | 82.3% | Effort: 59K thinking budget. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | Oct 28, 2025 |
| Hard reasoning | Humanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools | 17.8% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning)Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Tool use | AutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run | 14.1% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning)Effort: reasoning on. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Computer use | OSWorld 2.1Partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release | Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Long context | AA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 72.3% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning)Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Multimodal | MMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools | 68.7% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning)Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Factuality | AA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 32.9%Hallucination rate 49.1% in the same run (lower is better) | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning)Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Answers in full | SpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. With reasoning on, SpeechMap counted 48.3% of requests denied and 20.2% evaded. With reasoning off, the model completes 32.3%. | 31.4% | Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | SpeechMap.AI | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Instruction following | MultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI run. On Oct 28, 2026, Scale AI ranked it 25th, with extended thinking on. | 55.3%Plus or minus 1.47 points (95% interval) | Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | Scale AI SEAL | Oct 28, 2026 |
Price and speed
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists at $3 per million input tokens and $15 per million output tokens. Anthropic pricing, Oct 26, 2026.
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 writes 52.3 output tokens per second on Anthropic's API, and its first token arrives 14 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026.
- Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.
Every model with a result, axis by axis
57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.
| Model | Agentic coding | Code | Math | Science | Hard reasoning | Tool use | Computer use | Long context | Multimodal | Factuality | Answers in full | Instructions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Not yet published | 45.7% | 23.9% | 82.3% | 17.8% | 14.1% | Not yet published | 72.3% | 68.7% | 32.9% | 31.4% | 55.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | 36.4% | 55% | 75.1% | 89.6% | 44.4% | 35.4% | 72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | Not yet published | 34.7% | 78.8% | 67.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 64.1% | 61% | 88.8% | 95.6% | 55% | 71.8% | 80.1%Reported by Anthropic | 82.7% | Not yet published | 51.5% | 81.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 65.2% | 66.9% | 91.2% | 90.6% | 61.4% | 69.5% | 81.8%Reported by Anthropic | 84.7% | 87.7% | 65.5% | 82.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5.1 | 58.1% | 63.1% | 90.2% | 93.4%Run by Vals.ai | 59.1% | 59.4% | 80.7%Reported by Anthropic | 85.3% | 86.3%Run by Moonshot AI | 68.4% | 72.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5 | 53.5% | 56.4% | 85.6% | 93.9% | 54.9% | 56.6% | 77.7% | 79.3% | 84.7% | 60.9% | 73.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 10.6% | 54.3% | 65.6% | 80.3% | 41.3% | 36.5% | 57%Reported by Anthropic | 82% | 77.3% | 40.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5 | 41.4% | 61% | 87% | 85.9% | 55.5% | 54.1% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 65.4% | 64.8% | 63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 23.2% | 54.4% | 80% | 91% | 48.7% | 45.6% | 54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 77.7% | Not yet published | 48.8% | 67.4% | 62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Not yet published | 54.5% | 70.2% | 86.4% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 78.7% | 78.8% | 48.9% | 70.2% | 58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 3%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 50.1% | 71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 78.8% | 33.6% | 20.1% | 41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 73.3% | 40.9% | 35.8% | 56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 66% | 88.4% | 39.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78% | 75.4% | 47% | 59.9% | 37.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 34.4% | 86% | 30.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 77.3% | 74% | 46.6% | 57.5% | 59% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | Not yet published | 42.2% | 66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.2% | 10.4% | 3.2% | Not yet published | 74.3% | 58.6% | 18% | 24.7% | 50.5% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Terra | 49.5% | 55.1% | 90.9% | 94.3% | 46.2% | 60.2% | 74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 84.7% | 47.6% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 55.1% | 54.2% | 93.7% | 95.4% | 52.9% | 64.9% | 78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 83% | 86% | 61.8% | 69.5% | 82% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | 13.6% | 54.6% | 78.9% | 90.5% | 38.5% | 53.2% | 48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 83.3% | 79.7% | 39.6% | 63.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Astra | 59.6% | 56.5% | 93.7% | 95.8% | 54.7% | 68.5% | 75.8%Run by Meta | 80.7% | 86.9% | 61.6% | 68.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 37.9% | 57.1% | 89.1% | 93.5% | 49.5% | 60.1% | 62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84% | 83.4% | 69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Terra | 22.7% | 55% | 86% | 93.3% | 42.9% | 59.6% | Not yet published | 83% | 80.7% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 11.6% | 53.6% | 82.1% | 91.6% | 39.5% | 50.2% | Not yet published | 83.7% | 78.6% | 41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.5 | 14.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 55.8% | 85.3% | 93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 45.8% | 47.3% | 49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84.3% | 79.9% | 63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.4 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78.6% | 93.3% | 43.7% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 82% | 78.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| gpt-oss-120b | 14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 34% | 88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 75.8% | 19.6% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 52% | Not yet published | 16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA | 36.3% | 45.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Sol | 44.4% | 57.6% | 89.8% | 94.3% | 47.9% | 61.6% | 64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.0 | 83.7% | 82.9% | 54.5% | 64% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.3-Codex | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 42.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 83.3% | 78.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 4 Argon | 57.6% | 61.8% | 86% | 96.4% | 57.1% | 77.5% | 69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | Not yet published | 48.3% | 87% | 78.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | 19.7% | 56.6% | 68.4% | 95.4% | 47.8% | 59.9% | 59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 81.3% | 85.6% | 50.5% | 86.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemma 4 31B | Not yet published | 45.5% | Not yet published | 85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 23.6% | 4.9% | Not yet published | 69.7% | 73.4% | 10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 82.3% | 75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | 2.5% | 58.7% | 59.6% | 94.4% | 47% | 35.4% | Not yet published | 82% | 82.4% | 54.9% | 59.9% | 71.4% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 53.4% | 58.9% | 94.1% | 40.8% | 53% | 83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified | 80% | 83.2% | 66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 87.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | 31.8% | 55.9% | 71.2% | 93.2% | 43.3% | 66.6% | 69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 80.6% | 39.6% | Not yet published | 74.9% |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 14.1% | 51% | 64.6% | 91.7% | 41% | 56.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 45.2% | 72% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | 63.6% | 60.8% | Not yet published | 94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI | 52.5% | 73.3% | 79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 86.3% | 83.9% | 48.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3 | 17.2% | 59.5% | 72.2% | 93.1% | 46.9% | 58.3% | Not yet published | 88.7% | 80.5% | 50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 65.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K2.7 Code | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 47.8% | 54% | 87.9% | 35% | 24.5% | Not yet published | 79.3% | Not yet published | 36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Large 4 | 24.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 57.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 26% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Medium 3.5 | 0%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 40.2% | Not yet published | 74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 13.8% | 6.3% | Not yet published | 69.3% | 64.9% | 23% | 70.5% | 68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.7 | 28.8% | 57.4% | 53% | 92.7% | 43.1% | 65.6% | Not yet published | 76.7% | Not yet published | 42.7% | 64.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.6 | 17.2% | 56.5% | 66% | 93.2% | 42.9% | 66.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 83.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.5 | 8.6% | 55% | 57.2% | 93.4% | 42.7% | 57.9% | Not yet published | 79.3% | 80.4% | 48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 93.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiniMax M3.1 Flash | 25.3% | 53.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 48% | 72.5% | 61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | 79.1% | 45.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mercury 3 | 3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | 37.4% | 51.6% | 55.8% | 90.2% | 39.9% | 60.4% | 59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro | 28.2% | 65.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.3 | 38.9% | 59% | 68.8% | 90.9% | 42.3% | 62.2% | Not yet published | 79.7% | Not yet published | 32.3% | 71.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.2 | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 51.2% | 59.2% | Not yet published | 41.1% | 28.4% | Not yet published | 78.3% | Not yet published | 34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark Open | 6.6% | 58.4% | 69.8% | 88.6% | 43.9% | 49.7% | 80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified | 78.3% | 80.9% | 42% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Wonder | 49.5% | 60.3% | 82.1% | Not yet published | 50.1% | 68.1% | 72.6%Reported by Meta | 80.7% | Not yet published | 38% | 42.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark 1.3 | 10.6% | 58.8% | 74% | 93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 48.7% | 57.9% | 69.6% | 83% | 82% | 38% | 25.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Scout | Not yet published | 21.3% | 7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 51.8% | 3.8% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 27.7% | 52.9% | Not yet published | 70.1% | 39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | Not yet published | 31.7% | 20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 67% | 4.9% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 50% | 62.1% | Not yet published | 58.3% | 43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 27B | 5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 46.6% | Not yet published | 90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 33.9% | 48.2% | 84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified | 82% | 76.3% | 17.3% | Not yet published | 79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 Max | 38.9% | 52.1% | 65.6% | 92.3% | 43.1% | 56.2% | Not yet published | 80.3% | 82.8% | 29.5% | 65.3% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 31.3% | 60.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 49.4% | 58.6% | 82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 86.3% | Not yet published | 34.8% | 66.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | 24.2% | 51.3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 35.1% | 64.1% | 80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 74.3% | 73.1% | 27.2% | 66.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 56.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 43.5% | 67.5% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 26.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Step 5 Preview | 31.8% | 58.9% | Not yet published | 93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond | 46.5% | 51% | Not yet published | 88.3% | 76.4% | 36.4% | 59.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Opus 5.565.2%
- Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
- GPT-6 Astra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.158.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
- Claude Opus 553.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
- Muse Wonder49.5%
- GPT-6 Sol44.4%
- Claude Fable 541.4%
- GLM-5.338.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
- Step 5 Preview31.8%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
- Grok 4.728.8%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
- Claude Opus 4.823.2%
- GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
- Kimi K317.2%
- Grok 4.617.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
- GPT-6 Luna13.6%
- GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
- Claude Sonnet 510.6%
- Muse Spark 1.310.6%
- Grok 4.58.6%
- Muse Spark Open6.6%
- Mercury 33%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
- Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
- Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.
CodeSciCode
- Claude Opus 5.566.9%
- Claude Fable 5.163.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.561%
- Claude Fable 561%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
- Muse Wonder60.3%
- Kimi K359.5%
- GLM-5.359%
- Step 5 Preview58.9%
- Muse Spark 1.358.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
- Muse Spark Open58.4%
- GPT-6 Sol57.6%
- Grok 4.757.4%
- GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
- GPT-6 Astra56.5%
- Grok 4.656.5%
- Claude Opus 556.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
- GPT-5.555.8%
- GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
- Claude Haiku 5.555%
- GPT-5.6 Terra55%
- Grok 4.555%
- GPT-6 Luna54.6%
- Claude Opus 4.754.5%
- Claude Opus 4.854.4%
- Claude Sonnet 554.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
- GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
- GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
- GLM-5.251.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
- Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
- Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
- Gemma 4 31B45.5%
- Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
- Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
- gpt-oss-120b34%
- Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
- Llama 4 Scout21.3%
The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3
- GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
- GPT-6 Astra93.7%
- Claude Opus 5.591.2%
- GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
- Claude Fable 5.190.2%
- GPT-6 Sol89.8%
- GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
- Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
- Claude Fable 587%
- GPT-5.6 Terra86%
- Gemini 4 Argon86%
- Claude Opus 585.6%
- GPT-5.585.3%
- GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
- Muse Wonder82.1%
- Claude Opus 4.880%
- GPT-6 Luna78.9%
- GPT-5.478.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
- Muse Spark 1.374%
- Kimi K372.2%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Muse Spark Open69.8%
- GLM-5.368.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
- Claude Opus 4.666%
- Grok 4.666%
- Claude Sonnet 565.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
- GLM-5.259.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
- Grok 4.557.2%
- GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
- Kimi K2.7 Code54%
- Grok 4.753%
- Claude Opus 4.534.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
- gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.
ScienceGPQA Diamond
- Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
- GPT-6 Astra95.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
- GPT-6 Sol94.3%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
- Claude Opus 593.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
- Grok 4.593.4%
- GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
- GPT-5.493.3%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
- Grok 4.693.2%
- Kimi K393.1%
- Grok 4.792.7%
- Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
- GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
- Claude Opus 4.891%
- GLM-5.390.9%
- Claude Opus 5.590.6%
- GPT-6 Luna90.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
- Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
- Muse Spark Open88.6%
- Claude Opus 4.688.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
- Claude Opus 4.786.4%
- Claude Opus 4.586%
- Claude Fable 585.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
- Claude Sonnet 580.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
- gpt-oss-120b75.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick67%
- Llama 4 Scout51.8%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
- GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
- Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
- GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam
- Claude Opus 5.561.4%
- Claude Fable 5.159.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
- Claude Fable 555.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.555%
- Claude Opus 554.9%
- GPT-6 Astra54.7%
- GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
- Muse Wonder50.1%
- GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
- Claude Opus 4.848.7%
- Muse Spark 1.348.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
- GPT-6 Sol47.9%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
- Kimi K346.9%
- Step 5 Preview46.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
- GPT-5.545.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
- Muse Spark Open43.9%
- GPT-5.443.7%
- Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
- Grok 4.743.1%
- Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
- Grok 4.642.9%
- Grok 4.542.7%
- GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
- Claude Opus 4.742.3%
- GLM-5.342.3%
- Claude Sonnet 541.3%
- GLM-5.241.1%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
- Claude Opus 4.639.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
- GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
- GPT-6 Luna38.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code35%
- Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
- Claude Opus 4.530.1%
- Gemma 4 31B23.6%
- gpt-oss-120b19.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
- Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
- Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
- Llama 4 Scout3.8%
The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.
Tool useAutomationBench-AA
- Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
- Claude Opus 5.569.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.5%
- Muse Wonder68.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
- Grok 4.666.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
- Grok 4.765.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
- GLM-5.362.2%
- GPT-6 Sol61.6%
- GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
- GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.159.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
- Kimi K358.3%
- Grok 4.557.9%
- Muse Spark 1.357.9%
- Mistral Large 457.8%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
- Claude Opus 556.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
- Claude Fable 554.1%
- GPT-6 Luna53.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
- Step 5 Preview51%
- GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
- Muse Spark Open49.7%
- Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
- GPT-5.547.3%
- Claude Opus 4.845.6%
- Claude Sonnet 536.5%
- Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
- GLM-5.228.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
- Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
- Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
- Gemma 4 31B4.9%
- Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
- gpt-oss-120b0.2%
- Llama 4 Scout0.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick0.2%
The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.
Computer useOSWorld 2.1
- Claude Opus 577.7%
- Muse Spark 1.369.6%
- Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
- Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
- Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
- Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
- Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1
- Kimi K388.7%
- Step 5 Preview88.3%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
- Claude Fable 5.185.3%
- Claude Opus 5.584.7%
- GPT-5.584.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol84%
- GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
- GPT-6 Sol83.7%
- GPT-6 Luna83.3%
- GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol83%
- GPT-5.6 Terra83%
- Muse Spark 1.383%
- Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
- Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
- Claude Fable 582.3%
- Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 582%
- GPT-5.482%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
- Qwen3.8 27B82%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
- GPT-6 Astra80.7%
- Muse Wonder80.7%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
- Grok 4.680.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.680%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
- GLM-5.3-Flash80%
- Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
- GLM-5.379.7%
- Claude Opus 579.3%
- Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
- Grok 4.579.3%
- Claude Opus 4.778.7%
- GLM-5.278.3%
- Muse Spark Open78.3%
- Claude Opus 4.678%
- Claude Opus 4.877.7%
- Claude Opus 4.577.3%
- Grok 4.776.7%
- Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
- Gemma 4 31B69.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
- gpt-oss-120b52%
- Llama 4 Maverick50%
- Llama 4 Scout27.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.
MultimodalMMMU-Pro
- Claude Opus 5.587.7%
- GPT-6 Astra86.9%
- GPT-6.1 Sol86%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
- Claude Opus 584.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
- GPT-6 Sol82.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
- Muse Spark 1.382%
- Muse Spark Open80.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
- Kimi K380.5%
- Grok 4.580.4%
- GPT-5.579.9%
- GPT-6 Luna79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
- Claude Opus 4.778.8%
- GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
- GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
- GPT-5.478.4%
- Claude Sonnet 577.3%
- Step 5 Preview76.4%
- Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
- Claude Opus 4.675.4%
- Claude Opus 4.574%
- Gemma 4 31B73.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
- Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
- Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
- Llama 4 Scout52.9%
- Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
- GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro
The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.
FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy
- Claude Fable 5.168.4%
- Claude Opus 5.565.5%
- Claude Fable 565.4%
- GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
- GPT-6 Astra61.6%
- Claude Opus 560.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
- GPT-6 Sol54.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
- Claude Opus 4.848.8%
- Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
- GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
- Claude Opus 4.647%
- Claude Opus 4.546.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
- Grok 4.742.7%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
- Muse Spark Open42%
- Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
- Claude Sonnet 540.1%
- GPT-6 Luna39.6%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
- Muse Wonder38%
- Muse Spark 1.338%
- Step 5 Preview36.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
- Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
- GLM-5.332.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
- Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
- Mistral Large 426%
- Mistral Medium 3.523%
- Claude Haiku 4.518%
- Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
- Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.
Answers in fullSpeechMap
- Grok 4.593.1%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
- Gemini 4 Argon87%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
- Grok 4.683.6%
- Claude Opus 5.582.8%
- Gemma 4 31B82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
- Claude Opus 573.7%
- Claude Fable 5.172.4%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
- GLM-5.371.5%
- Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Llama 4 Scout70.1%
- GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.2%
- Claude Opus 4.867.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
- Kimi K365.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
- Claude Fable 564.8%
- Grok 4.764.1%
- GPT-6 Sol64%
- GPT-6 Luna63.4%
- Claude Opus 4.659.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
- Step 5 Preview59.7%
- Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
- Claude Opus 4.557.5%
- Muse Wonder42.7%
- gpt-oss-120b36.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
- Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
- Muse Spark 1.325.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.524.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.
Instruction followingMultiChallenge
- GPT-6.1 Sol82%
- Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
- Muse Spark Open74.2%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
- Claude Opus 4.559%
- Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
- Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
- gpt-oss-120b45.3%
- Claude Opus 4.637.2%
- Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
- GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.
Every measure on record
Cost, speed, reliability, knowledge-work and domain results for Claude Sonnet 4.5 beyond the twelve chart axes, each with the run it comes from and its publisher. These stay separate measures; none is folded into the chart.
| Measure | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Run | Source | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specs and access | ||||
| Context windowThe most tokens one request can hold, as the maker states it. Size alone says nothing about how well the model uses a long input; the Long context axis measures that. | 200K | Anthropic | Oct 28, 2026 | |
| Max outputThe most tokens the model writes in one response. | 64K | Anthropic | Oct 28, 2026 | |
| ReadsThe kinds of input the model accepts. | Text, Images | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 | |
| LicenceThe terms the weights or the service are offered under. | Commercial Terms of Service | Anthropic | Nov 1, 2026 | |
| Open weightsWhether the maker publishes the weights for anyone to run. | No | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 | |
| Routes offering itOf the 19 clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, how many offer the release today, preview included. | 13 of 19 | GILD route matrix | Oct 28, 2026 | |
| Cost | ||||
| Answer tokens per taskLower is better. Answer tokens per Intelligence Index task, reasoning excluded. | 10,237 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.14 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.13 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.3 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.25 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.099 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost per taskLower is better. What one Intelligence Index task cost AA at list price, input, cache, output and reasoning tokens together. | $0.56 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Cost to run the indexLower is better. What the whole Intelligence Index run cost AA at list price. The runs cost from tens of dollars to about $13,000, so the axis is log from $10 to $100,000. | $1,501 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is. | 16,824 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task. | 6,587 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Speed | ||||
| End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt. | 23 s | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs. | 14 s | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. | 48 tokens/s | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Time per taskLower is better. Wall-clock seconds per Intelligence Index task. Runs take from about 15 s to about 33 min, so the axis is log from 1 s to 10,000 s. | 275 s | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Time to first tokenLower is better. Median seconds to the first streamed chunk on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. Reasoning models spend this time thinking. | 1.0 s | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Reliability | ||||
| Hallucination rateLower is better. AA-Omniscience hallucination rate shows how often the model answers wrongly when it does not know and should decline. | 49.1% | Reasoning on | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly. | 32.9% | Reasoning on | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100. | -0.1 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| SimpleQA Verified (Epoch)Share of SimpleQA Verified factual questions answered correctly, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. A second factuality source beside AA-Omniscience. | 30.7% | 59K thinking tokens | Epoch AI | Aug 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge work | ||||
| AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval. | 713 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes. | 5.2% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval. | 907 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| MLCR (AA run)AA's MLCR overall score for long, multi-document reading. | 10.6% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Vending-Bench 2Vending-Bench 2 final balance of a simulated vending business run by the model, as Epoch AI republishes it. | $3,839 | Andon Labs (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| Capability beyond the chart | ||||
| AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy. | 54% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 796 | 32K thinking tokens | Sakana AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| ARC-AGI-2ARC-AGI-2 score from the ARC Prize maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 3.8% | ARC Prize Foundation (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 6% | Epoch AI | Oct 13, 2026 | |
| CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run. | 1.1% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 83.2% | Redwood Research (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch Capabilities Index: Epoch AI's composite across its benchmark hub, with its confidence interval. | 147 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Epoch AI | Oct 26, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tier 4 research math problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 2.4% | 32K thinking tokens | Epoch AI | Jun 11, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 23.9% | 32K thinking tokens | Epoch AI | Jun 11, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA run)GPQA Diamond accuracy in AA's run. | 72.7% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. | 78.8% | 16K thinking tokens | Epoch AI | Oct 28, 2025 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run. | 7.2% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| IFBench (AA run)Instruction-following accuracy on IFBench in AA's run. | 57.3% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points. | 19.3 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| LMCALMCA score, 0 to 100, as Epoch AI republishes it. Its interval is printed only as a half-width, so it is not drawn. | 38.8 | Redwood Research (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| METR time horizonMETR 50% time horizon in minutes of human work, with METR's interval, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 2.0 h | 16K thinking tokens | METR (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| MMMU-Pro (AA run)Multimodal understanding accuracy on MMMU-Pro in AA's run. | 68.7% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 17% | 48K thinking tokens | Epoch AI | Jul 25, 2026 |
| OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch)Share of OTIS Mock AIME 2024 to 2025 problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 71.1% | 16K thinking tokens | Epoch AI | Oct 28, 2025 |
| ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it. | 19% | Vals AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run. | 45.7% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| tau-Banking (AA run)AA's tau-Banking tool-use score. | 24.5% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| tau2-Bench (AA run)AA's tau2-Bench tool-use score. | 78.1% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness. | 0% | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| WebDev ArenaWebDev Arena score from human pairwise votes on web builds, with its 95% interval, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 1,385 | LMArena (via Epoch AI) | Jan 5, 2026 | |
| Domains | ||||
| EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points. | 30.5 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points. | 22.8 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points. | 21.9 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Healthcare and medicalArtificial Analysis capability score for healthcare and medical questions, 0 to 100 points. | 21.4 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points. | 25.6 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points. | 19.3 | Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 27, 2026 |
Routes, prices and uptime
Where Claude Sonnet 4.5 is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.
Where it is offered
13 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer Claude Sonnet 4.5 today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon Bedrock | Available | anthropic.claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929-v1:0 | us./eu./au./jp./global. profiles; no bedrock-mantle; Legacy; EOL date April 8, 2027; tiers: Standard and Reserved; context / output 200K / 64K; Bedrock retires later than Anthropic (Nov 30, 2026) | Amazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Claude Sonnet 4.5 |
| Claude Code | Available | claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929 | By full model name on the Anthropic API, or provider ARN, version or deployment name; aliases resolve per provider; the sonnet alias resolves to Sonnet 4.5 on Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud's Agent Platform and Microsoft Foundry (page read Oct 28, 2026) | Anthropic |
| Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) | Available | claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929 | Claude API model IDs (dated IDs use a hyphen) | Anthropic, Claude Sonnet 4.5Anthropic, Claude Models on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) |
| Claude Platform on AWS | Available | claude-sonnet-4-5 | Same ID as the Claude API | Anthropic |
| Cursor | Available | available, hidden by default; Premium plan or higher, API list price | Anysphere (Cursor) | |
| Databricks | Available | databricks-claude-sonnet-4-5 | available | Databricks, Databricks-hosted inferenceDatabricks, Detailed list of models supported by Databricks Foundation Model APIs |
| The maker's own API | Available | claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929 (alias claude-sonnet-4-5)deprecated Sept 30, 2026, retires Nov 30, 2026 | context / max output 200K / 64K; status per deprecations table | Anthropic, Claude Sonnet 4.5Anthropic, Model deprecations |
| GitHub Copilot | Retired | not statedretired picker label Claude Sonnet 4.5 | retired 2026-09-01 | GitHub, Supported AI models in GitHub Copilot |
| GitHub Models | Retired | not applicableservice retired | service retired July 30, 2026 | GitHub, GitHub Models |
| Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed) | Available | claude-sonnet-4-5 (GAversion @20250929) | retirement not sooner than Sept 29, 2026; input / output 1M (Preview) / 200,000 (GA) input; 64,000 output | Google, Anthropic's Claude on Google Cloud modelsGoogle, Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 4.5 on Google CloudAnthropic |
| Microsoft Foundry | Available | claude-sonnet-4-5 | deployment name defaults to model ID; hosted on Anthropic only (deprecated); context 200K; no Message Batches API | AnthropicMicrosoft Learn |
| OpenCode | Available | claude-sonnet-4-5 | OpenCode Zen gateway, Anthropic Messages endpoint | Anomaly (OpenCode), ModelsOpenCode (Anomaly) |
| OpenRouter | Available | anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 | context / max completion 1,000,000 / 64,000 | OpenRouter |
| Snowflake Cortex | Available | claude-sonnet-4-5 | Regions: Cross Cloud (Any Region); AWS US (Cross-Region); AWS US Commercial Gov (Cross-Region); AWS US FedRAMP High Plus (Cross-Region); AWS US DoD (Cross-Region); AWS EU (Cross-Region); AWS APJ (Cross-Region); AWS JP (Cross-Region); AWS AU (Cross-Region); Azure US FedRAMP High Plus (Cross-Region)†. | Snowflake |
| Windsurf / Devin | Available | Devin's federal compliance page, read Oct 28, 2026, marks Claude Sonnet 4.5 for FedRAMP High, ITAR and IL4 federal deployments in a table it dates Oct 20, 2026. Devin Desktop's commercial model list, read Oct 28, 2026, does not list Claude Sonnet 4.5. | Cognition (Devin docs), Compliance and AvailabilityCognition (Devin docs), AI Models |
Not offered on 1 route: Antigravity.
3 routes do not say: Codex, Gemini CLI and Grok Build.
What each of these 4 routes' pages say, with sources
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antigravity | Not offered | not listed; Gemini CLI serves Gemini models only | ||
| Codex | Not stated | Codex model docs list OpenAI models only | ||
| Gemini CLI | Not stated | Region, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages. | ||
| Grok Build | Not stated | Grok Build pages name only grok-4.7 | xAI (SpaceXSI) |
Prices by route
The lowest standard rate is Claude API, at $3 / $15 per million input and output tokens. US dollars per million tokens, as each route lists them, one row per route and rate plan, cheapest standard rate first after the maker's own; a blended rate states its mix.
| Route | Standard, in / out | Cache read | Other rates | Source, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude APIMakerLowest | $3 / $15 | Anthropic, Oct 26, 2026 | ||
| Artificial Analysis price record | $3 / $15 | $0.3 | Blended $6, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $2.31, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 outputCache write $3.75 | Artificial Analysis, Oct 27, 2026 |
Lineup
Anthropic's 14 releases in 4 families, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is lit.
CurrentLegacyThis model
Price is the list price per 1M tokens, input / output. Speed is median output tokens per second. Bars share one scale across the lineup. Read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
Claude Haiku
Anthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.
2 releases
Claude Sonnet
Anthropic's balanced Claude model family.
4 releases
- This page4.5Deprecated. In 4 products we coverPrice$3 / $15Speed52.3 tok/s
- 4.6Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$3 / $15Speed65.5 tok/s
- 5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$2 / $10Speed85.8 tok/s
- 5.5Current. In 9 products we coverPrice$2 / $10Speed140.1 tok/s
Claude Opus
Anthropic's high-capability Claude model family.
6 releases
- 4.5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed58.8 tok/s
- 4.6Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed47.7 tok/s
- 4.7Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed54.7 tok/s
- 4.8Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed65.9 tok/s
- 5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed53.3 tok/s
- 5.5Current. In 9 products we coverPrice$4 / $20Speed98.4 tok/s
Claude Fable
Anthropic's Claude family for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.
2 releases
Products
We cover 4 products that offer Claude Sonnet 4.5 today: 3 subscriptions and 1 API.
Through a subscription
- OpenCode+27 PositiveOpen-source, MIT-licensed coding agent that edits code and runs commands from a terminal UI, desktop app, web client, or editor extension.
- Claude Code+75 Strong positiveAnthropic's agentic coding product for terminal and IDE workflows.
- Cursor+11 MixedAI coding agent and code editor for writing, reviewing, and shipping software, with agents in the editor, the terminal, and the cloud.
Through an API
Comparisons
GILD comparisons that name Claude Sonnet 4.5, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.
- Amazon Bedrock vs Claude API: Buying Claude Through AWS or From AnthropicNames Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Amazon Bedrock vs Microsoft Foundry: Which Cloud AI Platform Fits Your Stack?Compares routes that serve Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Claude API vs Gemini API: Which Model Platform Fits Your Workloads?Compares routes that serve Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Claude API vs OpenAI API: Top Scores or Lower Cost per Task?Compares routes that serve Claude Sonnet 4.5
- DeepSeek API vs Claude API: Price per Task or Controls and Residency?Compares routes that serve Claude Sonnet 4.5
- DeepSeek API vs OpenRouter: Buy DeepSeek From DeepSeek, or From Another Host?Compares routes that serve Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Gemini API vs Amazon Bedrock: One Model Family or a Model Marketplace?Compares routes that serve Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Gemini API vs Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform: Which Route to Gemini?Compares routes that serve Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform vs Microsoft Foundry: Google Cloud or Azure for Models and AgentsCompares routes that serve Claude Sonnet 4.5
- LiteLLM vs OpenRouter: Run Your Own Gateway or Rent One?Compares routes that serve Claude Sonnet 4.5
- OpenRouter vs Portkey: Rent Model Access or Run a Governed Gateway?Compares routes that serve Claude Sonnet 4.5
- Together AI vs OpenRouter: One Open-Model Host or a Router Across HostsCompares routes that serve Claude Sonnet 4.5
What practitioners report
Strongest on Speed, weakest on Cost.
Each figure is the share of accounts naming Claude Sonnet 4.5 that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.
| Axis | Favorable | Accounts |
|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency. | 69% | 11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors |
| Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track. | 50% | 3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors |
| Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs. | 50% | 4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors |
| Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers. | 50% | 3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors |
| CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save. | 38% | 3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors |
| SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput. | 75% | 6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors |
| ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked. | 40% | 4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors |
Every model on these seven axes
| Axis | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Claude Opus 5.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | GPT-6.1 Terra | GPT-6.1 Sol | GPT-6 Luna | GPT-6 Astra | GPT-5.6 Sol | GPT-5.6 Terra | GPT-5.6 Luna | GPT-5.5 | GPT-5.4 | gpt-oss-120b | GPT-6 Sol | GPT-5.3-Codex | Gemini 4 Argon | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Gemma 4 31B | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Gemini 3.6 Flash | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Kimi K3 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Mistral Large 4 | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Grok 4.7 | Grok 4.6 | Grok 4.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Mercury 3 | GLM-5.3-Flash | GLM-5.3 | GLM-5.2 | Muse Spark Open | Muse Wonder | Muse Spark 1.3 | Llama 4 Scout | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.8 27B | Qwen3.8 Max | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Step 5 Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoning | 69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors | 73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors | 64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors | 68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors | 67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors | 55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors | 44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors | 31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors | 56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors | 80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors | 56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors | 36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors | 86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors | 86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors | 67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors | 76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | 71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors |
| Tool use and structured output | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors | 56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Long context | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | 64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Developer experience | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | No accounts yet | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | 25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Cost | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors | 45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors | 56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors | 20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | 8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors | 40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors | 29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authors | Only praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors | 50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors | 19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors | 80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author |
| Speed | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors | 73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors | 78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | 37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors | 35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Reliability | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors | 15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
The 40 accounts behind Claude Sonnet 4.5's figures
GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, LMArena, Vals AI and the web for accounts that name Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Quality and reasoning 69%
- Favorable
planning performance is up 18%, end-to-end eval scores up 12%
Rebuilding Devin for Claude Sonnet 4.5: Lessons and Challenges. The Cognition Team, makers of Devin, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Devin and Windsurf, with the 1M-token context beta. A partner account: the author's company sells or serves this model, so it counts toward no figure.
- Favorable
We're currently using Claude Sonnet 4.5 for the core agent loop, as it hits a sweet spot of quality
8 learnings from 1 year of agents – PostHog AI. Michael Matloka, PostHog, self-described, Nov 25, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 for the PostHog AI core agent loop.
- Unfavorable
I'm having to handhold it through analysis tasks
Comment on: Claude Sonnet 4.5. data-ottawa, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 on tool-call based analysis workflows.
- Favorable
Really the only thing that came close to Sonnet 4.5 was GLM-5
Comment on Amazon Bedrock model testing. nijave, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 29, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929-v1:0 (Sonnet 4.5) on Amazon Bedrock in a Strands devops agent.
- Favorable
Accuracy: tie (both used every number correctly). Compliance framing: Claude stronger
PLUTUS 32B against Claude Sonnet 4.5. Gaurav Shrivastava, founder of Pensieve, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.5 on a financial diagnostic query.
- Favorable
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) is above average in intelligence
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (non-reasoning) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Sonnet 4.5) non-reasoning, as measured by Artificial Analysis.
- Unfavorable
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) is below average in intelligence
Claude 4.5 Sonnet - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Sonnet 4.5) with reasoning, as measured by Artificial Analysis.
- Favorable
Sonnet 4.5 delivered a solid feature-rich blog
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Sonnet 4.5: A Real-World Comparison. Tony Spiro, CEO of Cosmic, Feb 17, 2026. Sonnet 4.5 building a blog app through the Cosmic AI Platform, against Sonnet 4.6.
- Favorable
My initial impressions were that it felt like a better model for code than GPT-5-Codex
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is probably the "best coding model in the world" (at least for now). Simon Willison, author of Simon Willison's Weblog, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in the claude.ai Code Interpreter and through llm-anthropic, with and without thinking.
- Favorable
It catches bugs Sonnet 4 missed, edges closer to Opus 4.1 in coverage
Claude Sonnet 4.5: Better performance but a paradox. David Loker, CodeRabbit, self-described, Oct 3, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in CodeRabbit's code review benchmark of 25 pull requests, against Sonnet 4 and Opus 4.1.
- Favorable
It excels at testing its own code, enabling Devin to run longer, handle harder tasks, and deliver production-ready code more consistently
Announcing Devin Agent Preview with Sonnet 4.5. Scott Wu, Cognition, quoted in a Cognition post by Theodor Marcu, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Devin. A partner account: the author's company sells or serves this model, so it counts toward no figure.
- Favorable
It made a handful of great changes and did pretty great code overall. Disciplined, followed instructions
[MODEL] OPUS 4.5 outperformed by Sonnet 4.5, dramatically and consistently. wagabondpets, GitHub user, self-described, Feb 2, 2026. Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code on a mid-complexity refactor, against Opus 4.5.
- Unfavorable
Overall I feel the quality of the code in Sonnet 4.5 is lower then Opus 4.1
[Bug] Sonnet 4.5: Decreased Code Generation Quality and Completeness. grosubogdan, GitHub user on the maximum subscription, self-described, Oct 16, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code 2.0.15, against Opus 4.1.
- Unfavorable
it's very common for me to push it into a situation where it will be subtly wrong and waste a lot of my time
Comment on: Olmo 3: Charting a path through the model flow to lead open-source AI. thot_experiment, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 21, 2025. sonnet 4.5.
- Unfavorable
Sonnet 4.5 doesn't quite get there in many of the use cases that are important to me
Comment on: Composer: Building a fast frontier model with RL. leemoore, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 30, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 against GPT-5 high in Codex CLI.
- Unfavorable
But what it built was broken and superficial
Comment on: Claude Sonnet 4.5. iagooar, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 (Claude Code) against GPT-5-Codex on a 200k-line web app.
- Favorable
We noticed a massive improvement in quality starting with Sonnet 4.5
Comment on: We gave terabytes of CI logs to an LLM. Andrea Luzzardi (aluzzardi), co-founder and CTO of Mendral, author of the post, Feb 27, 2026. Sonnet 4.5 reading CI logs in Mendral's agent with subagents.
- Favorable
it easily wrote a Word doc with a third-quarter investor update that I could've sent with only minor tweaks
Vibe Check: Claude Sonnet 4.5. Dan Shipper, CEO and cofounder of Every, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code and the Claude app, against Opus 4.1 and GPT-5 Codex.
- Favorable
stick to basics: sonnet 4.5 is solid
Opus 4.1 vs Sonnet 4.5 for copywriting. Mark, ads and funnels marketer on X, self-described, Nov 14, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 against Opus 4.1 for copywriting.
- Favorable
This is a pretty significant jump in agent quality and behavior
Sonnet 4.5 is out on Windsurf. Jeff Wang, then CEO of Windsurf, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in Windsurf. A partner account: the author's company sells or serves this model, so it counts toward no figure.
- Favorable
successfully tackles an additional 10% of queries with human feedback
Claude Sonnet 4.5 optimizes tool execution to unlock 10% of queries that were previously out of reach. Kunal Patil, Nikhil Mandava, Seema Jethani and Nilesh Dalvi, Glean engineering and product, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Glean's Agentic Engine 2, against Sonnet 4.0.
Tool use and structured output 50%
- Favorable
Sonnet 4.5 is efficient at maximizing actions per context window through parallel tool execution
Rebuilding Devin for Claude Sonnet 4.5: Lessons and Challenges. The Cognition Team, makers of Devin, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Devin and Windsurf, with the 1M-token context beta. A partner account: the author's company sells or serves this model, so it counts toward no figure.
- Unfavorable
this new Sonnet model is massively falling apart on my tool call based workflows
Comment on: Claude Sonnet 4.5. data-ottawa, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 on tool-call based analysis workflows.
- Favorable
Sonnet 4.5 absolutely shines at using this tool!
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is probably the "best coding model in the world" (at least for now). Simon Willison, author of Simon Willison's Weblog, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in the claude.ai Code Interpreter and through llm-anthropic, with and without thinking.
- Favorable
Even if sonnet is better at tool calling
Comment on: Composer: Building a fast frontier model with RL. leemoore, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 30, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 against GPT-5 high in Codex CLI.
- Unfavorable
the assistant often doesn't search when it should and very rarely does multiple search rounds (both on gpt5 or on claude sonnet 4.5
Comment on: Production RAG: what I learned from processing 5M+ documents. jokethrowaway, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 21, 2025. claude sonnet 4.5 as a RAG assistant with search tools.
- Favorable
Just like GPT5, Sonnet 4.5 also has parallel tool calling
Sonnet 4.5 is out on Windsurf. Jeff Wang, then CEO of Windsurf, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in Windsurf. A partner account: the author's company sells or serves this model, so it counts toward no figure.
- Favorable
it's also more efficient using parallel tool calling without forceful prompting
Claude Sonnet 4.5 optimizes tool execution to unlock 10% of queries that were previously out of reach. Kunal Patil, Nikhil Mandava, Seema Jethani and Nilesh Dalvi, Glean engineering and product, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Glean's Agentic Engine 2, against Sonnet 4.0.
- Unfavorable
Claude Sonnet 4.5 repeatedly fails to produce valid tool calls when running in Code mode with native tool protocol
[BUG] Sonnet 4.5 fails to output valid tool calls in Roo Code 3.40.1 (Code mode, native protocol). gr0maqny, GitHub user, self-described, Jan 14, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Roo Code with native tool protocol, on Bedrock through LiteLLM.
Long context 50%
- Unfavorable
we found the model taking shortcuts or leaving tasks incomplete when it believed it was near the end of its window, even when it had plenty of room left
Rebuilding Devin for Claude Sonnet 4.5: Lessons and Challenges. The Cognition Team, makers of Devin, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Devin and Windsurf, with the 1M-token context beta. A partner account: the author's company sells or serves this model, so it counts toward no figure.
- Unfavorable
Sonnet 4.5 Context Size – The context window feels extremely limited. It fills up almost instantly
[Bug] Sonnet 4.5 context window fills up prematurely with large files. cubetribe (Dennis), GitHub user on the top Claude plan, self-described, Nov 10, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code 2.0.36.
- Unfavorable
but got lost and forgot a large section of my plan
[MODEL] OPUS 4.5 outperformed by Sonnet 4.5, dramatically and consistently. wagabondpets, GitHub user, self-described, Feb 2, 2026. Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code on a mid-complexity refactor, against Opus 4.5.
- Unfavorable
it just stops without compleating the implementatrion
[Bug] Sonnet 4.5: Decreased Code Generation Quality and Completeness. grosubogdan, GitHub user on the maximum subscription, self-described, Oct 16, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code 2.0.15, against Opus 4.1.
- Favorable
Sonnet 4.5 has a 1m context window option if you are using it through the api, and it works pretty well
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.6. libraryofbabel, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 5, 2026. Sonnet 4.5 with the 1M context window through the API.
- Unfavorable
Even when I've used Sonnet 4.5 with 1M token context the model starts to flake out and get confused with a codebase of less than 10k LoC
Comment on: Gemini 3. windexh8er, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 19, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 with 1M token context on a codebase under 10k lines.
- Favorable
I used sonnet 4.5 1m frequently and my impression was that it was around the same performance
Comment on: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6. steve-atx-7600, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 14, 2026. sonnet 4.5 1m (Sonnet 4.5 with the 1M context window).
- Favorable
handled multi-file reasoning without wandering
Vibe Check: Claude Sonnet 4.5. Dan Shipper, CEO and cofounder of Every, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code and the Claude app, against Opus 4.1 and GPT-5 Codex.
- Favorable
Sonnet 4.5 is better at parsing large result sets and committing to an answer when its confidence is high
Claude Sonnet 4.5 optimizes tool execution to unlock 10% of queries that were previously out of reach. Kunal Patil, Nikhil Mandava, Seema Jethani and Nilesh Dalvi, Glean engineering and product, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Glean's Agentic Engine 2, against Sonnet 4.0.
Developer experience 50%
- Favorable
which is fairly concise in comparison to the median of 87M
Claude 4.5 Sonnet - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Sonnet 4.5) with reasoning, as measured by Artificial Analysis.
- Unfavorable
Verbosity and hedging: Many comments run long, caveated, or uncertain.
Claude Sonnet 4.5: Better performance but a paradox. David Loker, CodeRabbit, self-described, Oct 3, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in CodeRabbit's code review benchmark of 25 pull requests, against Sonnet 4 and Opus 4.1.
- Favorable
Sonnet 4.5 much better in this regard
Comment on: Developers are choosing older AI models. feintruled, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 5, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 against GPT-5.
- Favorable
is generally better at following my intent rather than the letter of my prompt
Comment on: Claude Code on the web. extr, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code against GPT-5 in Codex.
- Favorable
and stayed terse when we asked it to
Vibe Check: Claude Sonnet 4.5. Dan Shipper, CEO and cofounder of Every, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code and the Claude app, against Opus 4.1 and GPT-5 Codex.
- Unfavorable
i have added rules too but still it ignore rules and keep writing them
Claude 4.5 sonnet keeps writing long .md files and keeps burning much token on it. alihamza79 (Ali Hamza), Cursor forum user, self-described, Oct 6, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Claude 4.5 sonnet) in Cursor.
- Unfavorable
This is too annoying and pollutes the whole codebase.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 keeps creating useless .md, .sh, .txt or test files without actually executing the fixes. matgenehr (Matheus Genehr Rodrigues da Silva), Cursor forum user, self-described, Oct 23, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Cursor.
Cost 38%
- Favorable
it hits a sweet spot of quality, speed, and cost
8 learnings from 1 year of agents – PostHog AI. Michael Matloka, PostHog, self-described, Nov 25, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 for the PostHog AI core agent loop.
- Favorable
The real kicker is, Sonnet is also the cheapest since it supports prompt caching
Comment on Amazon Bedrock model testing. nijave, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Apr 29, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929-v1:0 (Sonnet 4.5) on Amazon Bedrock in a Strands devops agent.
- Unfavorable
This results in inflated `cache_creation_input_tokens` in `usage_metadata`, causing incorrect cost tracking
Bug: converse_stream with extended thinking doubles cacheWriteInputTokens. naaive, GitHub user, self-described, Apr 8, 2026. global.anthropic.claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929-v1:0 (Sonnet 4.5) on Bedrock us-west-2, streaming with extended thinking and prompt caching.
- Unfavorable
but somewhat expensive when comparing to other non-reasoning models of similar price
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (non-reasoning) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Sonnet 4.5) non-reasoning, as measured by Artificial Analysis.
- Unfavorable
below average in intelligence and somewhat expensive when comparing to other models of similar price
Claude 4.5 Sonnet - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Sonnet 4.5) with reasoning, as measured by Artificial Analysis.
- Unfavorable
but still quite a bit more than GPT-5 and GPT-5-Codex, both at $1.25/$10
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is probably the "best coding model in the world" (at least for now). Simon Willison, author of Simon Willison's Weblog, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in the claude.ai Code Interpreter and through llm-anthropic, with and without thinking.
- Favorable
Sonnet 4.5 gets you close to Opus-level performance at a fraction of the price
Claude Sonnet 4.5: Better performance but a paradox. David Loker, CodeRabbit, self-described, Oct 3, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in CodeRabbit's code review benchmark of 25 pull requests, against Sonnet 4 and Opus 4.1.
- Unfavorable
Bedrock Claude 4.5 Sonnet output token count is greater than what it should be by factor of 5
[BUG] AWS Cloudwatch Output token count is too high for Claude 4.5 Sonnet. siamacka (Siamack), GitHub user, self-described, Apr 24, 2026. Bedrock Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Sonnet 4.5) in Claude Code.
- Unfavorable
Albeit it's too verbose for the new token based world
Comment on: Developers are choosing older AI models. feintruled, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 5, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 against GPT-5.
- Unfavorable
which results in burning many output tokens
Claude 4.5 sonnet keeps writing long .md files and keeps burning much token on it. alihamza79 (Ali Hamza), Cursor forum user, self-described, Oct 6, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Claude 4.5 sonnet) in Cursor.
Speed 75%
- Favorable
The new version is 2x faster, 12% better on our Junior Developer Evals
Rebuilding Devin for Claude Sonnet 4.5: Lessons and Challenges. The Cognition Team, makers of Devin, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Devin and Windsurf, with the 1M-token context beta. A partner account: the author's company sells or serves this model, so it counts toward no figure.
- Favorable
as it hits a sweet spot of quality, speed
8 learnings from 1 year of agents – PostHog AI. Michael Matloka, PostHog, self-described, Nov 25, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 for the PostHog AI core agent loop.
- Unfavorable
At 47 tokens per second, Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) is notably slow
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (non-reasoning) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Sonnet 4.5) non-reasoning, as measured by Artificial Analysis.
- Unfavorable
At 50 tokens per second, Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Reasoning) is notably slow
Claude 4.5 Sonnet - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Sonnet 4.5) with reasoning, as measured by Artificial Analysis.
- Unfavorable
Claude Code (Sonnet 4.5) has become extremely slow
[Bug] Claude Code (Sonnet 4.5) Works Extremely Slowly. takylemo909, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 15, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code on Windows.
- Favorable
but a hell of a lot faster since the 1m model was willing to spends more tokens at each step
Comment on: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6. steve-atx-7600, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 14, 2026. sonnet 4.5 1m (Sonnet 4.5 with the 1M context window).
- Unfavorable
of course that's colored by it being slow and costs money
Comment on: Olmo 3: Charting a path through the model flow to lead open-source AI. thot_experiment, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Nov 21, 2025. sonnet 4.5.
- Favorable
Sonnet 4.5/CC is faster, more direct
Comment on: Claude Code on the web. extr, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code against GPT-5 in Codex.
- Favorable
Sonnet 4.5 went really fast at ~3min
Comment on: Claude Sonnet 4.5. iagooar, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 (Claude Code) against GPT-5-Codex on a 200k-line web app.
- Favorable
The new Sonnet 4.5 is really fast
Vibe Check: Claude Sonnet 4.5. Dan Shipper, CEO and cofounder of Every, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code and the Claude app, against Opus 4.1 and GPT-5 Codex.
- Favorable
TLDR; Sonnet 4.5 is good and fast
Sonnet 4.5 is good and fast. Ian Nuttall, X user, self-described, Sep 30, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 against GPT-5 and Opus 4.1.
Reliability 40%
- Unfavorable
AWS claims the default quota for Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 4.5 with cross region inference as 1000 requests per minute. I only get 50 RPM.
Amazon Bedrock Leaves Builders Stuck in 1st Gear. Dave Hall, author of Proactive Ops, self-described, Feb 26, 2026. Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 4.5 with cross region inference on Amazon Bedrock.
- Unfavorable
Claude Sonnet 4.5 V1 (global cross-region) 10 10,000 1,000x below
16 days, 4 channels, no AWS Bedrock quota fix. Ziva.sh, makers of the Ziva Godot agent, self-described, May 16, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.5 V1 (global cross-region) on Amazon Bedrock us-west-2.
- Favorable
Sonnet 4.5 absolutely shines at using this tool!
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is probably the "best coding model in the world" (at least for now). Simon Willison, author of Simon Willison's Weblog, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in the claude.ai Code Interpreter and through llm-anthropic, with and without thinking.
- Favorable
It reliably flagged distributed state mismatches across services.
Claude Sonnet 4.5: Better performance but a paradox. David Loker, CodeRabbit, self-described, Oct 3, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in CodeRabbit's code review benchmark of 25 pull requests, against Sonnet 4 and Opus 4.1.
- Favorable
deliver production-ready code more consistently
Announcing Devin Agent Preview with Sonnet 4.5. Scott Wu, Cognition, quoted in a Cognition post by Theodor Marcu, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Devin. A partner account: the author's company sells or serves this model, so it counts toward no figure.
- Unfavorable
I've seen drastically reduced quality from Sonnet 4.5 and Claude Code over the last day or two
Drastically reduced quality from Sonnet 4.5 and Claude Code ~Dec 26. dbarnett, GitHub user, self-described, Dec 27, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code 2.0.76.
- Unfavorable
Claude Code CLI returns API Error 500 on every single prompt, including system commands like /feedback. Complete inability to use Claude Code.
[BUG] API Error 500 on all prompts including /feedback command - Sonnet 4.5 and Opus 4.5. abelardodiaz, GitHub user, self-described, Feb 3, 2026. Sonnet 4.5 and Opus 4.5 in the Claude Code CLI.
- Unfavorable
When using Claude Sonnet 4.5 to write production code recently, I've noticed a worsening pattern
Sonnet 4.5 Code Quality Regression: Overconfidence + Lack of Verification. William17738, GitHub user, self-described, Jan 22, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.5 writing production code.
- Unfavorable
I still use sonnet for most less intelligence phases and tasks (until I get crunched by rate limits)
Comment on: Composer: Building a fast frontier model with RL. leemoore, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 30, 2025. Sonnet 4.5 against GPT-5 high in Codex CLI.
- Favorable
more reliable than Opus 4.1
Vibe Check: Claude Sonnet 4.5. Dan Shipper, CEO and cofounder of Every, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Claude Code and the Claude app, against Opus 4.1 and GPT-5 Codex.
- Favorable
successfully tackles an additional 10% of queries with human feedback
Claude Sonnet 4.5 optimizes tool execution to unlock 10% of queries that were previously out of reach. Kunal Patil, Nikhil Mandava, Seema Jethani and Nilesh Dalvi, Glean engineering and product, self-described, Sep 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 4.5 in Glean's Agentic Engine 2, against Sonnet 4.0.