Skip to main content

Claude Sonnet model by Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 4.6

An earlier Claude Sonnet release, still available on the Claude API.

Official page

Where it sits in Anthropic's lineup

  1. Claude HaikuAnthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.Claude Haiku 5.5
  2. Claude SonnetAnthropic's balanced Claude model family.You are on Claude Sonnet 4.6. Current:Claude Sonnet 5.5
  3. Claude OpusAnthropic's high-capability Claude model family.Claude Opus 5.5
  4. 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 4.6
Released
Feb 17, 2026 Legacy
Lifecycle
  • GitHub Copilot: Retired on Sep 1, 2026, except for individual subscribers on annual Copilot Pro and Pro+ plans, per GitHub.
In its family
Release 2 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 4.6

  • Claude Sonnet 4.6

Suggested comparisons

The models a buyer weighs against Claude Sonnet 4.6, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Claude Sonnet 4.6.

Claude Sonnet 4.6AnthropicThis page, always on the chart

Ranked against the 40 current releases on this chart, Claude Sonnet 4.6's best rank is 16th of 31 on Factuality. On Computer use, OSWorld team's runs on OSWorld 2.0 put Claude Sonnet 4.6 13.3 points under Claude Opus 4.8 and 7.4 points under Claude Opus 4.7. Agentic coding is Artificial Analysis's run on Terminal-Bench 4.0, Math is Epoch AI's run on OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 and Instruction following is Artificial Analysis's run on IFBench, marked on the chart. It ranks lowest on Answers in full, 25th of 26 and Science, 24th of 25.

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. A hollow mark is a result from another source: the maker's own figure or another lab's run, where the benchmark's usual source has not tested the model yet. The readout names it.

On the chart

  • Claude Sonnet 4.6This pageResults on 12 of 12 axes$3 / $1566 tokens/sFirst token in 107 s

Prices and speeds read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 on each axis12 of 12 with a result

Beside the benchmarks

Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Claude Sonnet 4.6, with where each figure sits among the 41 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.

Cost

$2.49per task

Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted. Run at max effort.

Speed

49tokens a second

Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at reasoning off.

First token
1.0 s
Whole answer
148 s

Capacity

1Mtokens

Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.

Max output
128K
Reads
Text, Images

Quality

24.7of 100

Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at reasoning off.

GDPval knowledge work
1,233 Elo
Terminal-Bench 4.0
3.0%
Epoch Capabilities Index
153

Hallucination

48.4%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 max effort.

Knowledge accuracy
40.9%

Where you can get it

14of 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
Every route and price

Figures from Artificial Analysis, anthropic, Epoch AI, GILD's route matrix and Anthropic, read Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for Claude Sonnet 4.6: Cached input.

Every value with its benchmark, run and source

Claude Sonnet 4.6's result on each axis, with the benchmark, the setting and run, who reported it, the source and the date
AxisBenchmark and settingClaude Sonnet 4.6RunSourceDate
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run in its own agent harness. Artificial Analysis's run of the October 29 build at high effort in its own agent harness. Vals.ai has run only the October 6 preview build.Stands in for Terminal-Bench 4.0, pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness, which has no run of Claude Sonnet 4.6 yet.3%Unusual next to its other results. Artificial Analysis's run of the October 29 build at high effort in its own agent harness. Vals.ai has run only the October 6 preview build. Artificial Analysis run of Oct 28, 2026.Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: Artificial Analysis Terminal-Bench harness.Artificial AnalysisRun by Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
CodeSciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run50.1%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MathOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025Accuracy, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025, high reasoning. Epoch AI's run at max effort, the highest effort it ran. Its 32K thinking budget run scored 85.8, and high 75.6.Stands in for FrontierMath Tiers 1-3, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run, which has no run of Claude Sonnet 4.6 yet.71.1%Effort: max. Harness: none.Epoch AIRun by Epoch AIAug 6, 2026
ScienceGPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run78.8%Effort: max. Harness: none.Epoch AIFeb 17, 2026
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools33.6%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Tool useAutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run20.1%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Computer useOSWorld 2.0Partial score, full task set, v2026.06.24 release. The OSWorld team's own run at max effort with a 500-step budget, on the v2026.08.08 task release. It fully completed 8.3% of tasks; its medium-effort run scored 33.9.Stands in for OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release, which has no run of Claude Sonnet 4.6 yet.41.5%Claude Sonnet 4.6Effort: max. Harness: OSWorld team harness.OSWorld teamRun by OSWorld teamOct 15, 2026
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run80%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MultimodalMMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools73.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
FactualityAA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run40.9%Hallucination rate 48.4% in the same run (lower is better)Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Answers in fullSpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. With thinking on, SpeechMap counted 45.4% of requests denied and 18.3% evaded. With thinking off, the model completes 29.1%.35.8%0.4% of requests failed at the provider and count against itEffort: reasoning on. Harness: none.SpeechMap.AIOct 27, 2026
Instruction followingIFBenchAccuracy, Artificial Analysis IFBench run. Artificial Analysis ran Claude Sonnet 4.6 at max effort in its own evaluation harness.Stands in for MultiChallenge, accuracy, Scale AI run, which has no run of Claude Sonnet 4.6 yet.56.6%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisRun by Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026

Price and speed

  • Claude Sonnet 4.6 lists at $3 per million input tokens and $15 per million output tokens. Anthropic pricing, Oct 26, 2026.
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6, at max effort, writes 65.5 output tokens per second on Anthropic's API, and its first token arrives 107 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.

The result of every model GILD has benchmark results for, on each of the 12 axes. A vendor-reported value is marked. A model's run notes open under its row from its name, each with the axes it covers.
ModelAgentic codingCodeMathScienceHard reasoningTool useComputer useLong contextMultimodalFactualityAnswers in fullInstructions
Claude Sonnet 4.63%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.050.1%71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202578.8%33.6%20.1%41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.080%73.3%40.9%35.8%56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Haiku 5.536.4%55%75.1%89.6%44.4%35.4%72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.182.7%Not yet published34.7%78.8%67.7%
Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%61%88.8%95.6%55%71.8%80.1%Reported by Anthropic82.7%Not yet published51.5%81.6%Not yet published
Claude Opus 5.565.2%66.9%91.2%90.6%61.4%69.5%81.8%Reported by Anthropic84.7%87.7%65.5%82.8%Not yet published
Claude Fable 5.158.1%63.1%90.2%93.4%Run by Vals.ai59.1%59.4%80.7%Reported by Anthropic85.3%86.3%Run by Moonshot AI68.4%72.4%Not yet published
Claude Opus 553.5%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 510.6%54.3%65.6%80.3%41.3%36.5%57%Reported by Anthropic82%77.3%40.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Claude Fable 541.4%61%87%85.9%55.5%54.1%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published65.4%64.8%63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.823.2%54.4%80%91%48.7%45.6%54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.077.7%Not yet published48.8%67.4%62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.7Not yet published54.5%70.2%86.4%42.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.078.7%78.8%48.9%70.2%58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.6Not yet publishedNot yet published66%88.4%39.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published78%75.4%47%59.9%37.2%
Claude Opus 4.5Not yet publishedNot yet published34.4%86%30.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published77.3%74%46.6%57.5%59%
Claude Haiku 4.5Not yet published42.2%66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202571.2%10.4%3.2%Not yet published74.3%58.6%18%24.7%50.5%
Claude Sonnet 4.5Not yet published45.7%23.9%82.3%17.8%14.1%Not yet published72.3%68.7%32.9%31.4%55.3%
GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%55.1%90.9%94.3%46.2%60.2%74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.182.7%84.7%47.6%Not yet published74.2%
GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%54.2%93.7%95.4%52.9%64.9%78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.183%86%61.8%69.5%82%
GPT-6 Luna13.6%54.6%78.9%90.5%38.5%53.2%48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.183.3%79.7%39.6%63.4%Not yet published
GPT-6 Astra59.6%56.5%93.7%95.8%54.7%68.5%75.8%Run by Meta80.7%86.9%61.6%68.2%Not yet published
GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%57.1%89.1%93.5%49.5%60.1%62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084%83.4%69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%55%86%93.3%42.9%59.6%Not yet published83%80.7%42.3%Not yet published71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%53.6%82.1%91.6%39.5%50.2%Not yet published83.7%78.6%41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GPT-5.514.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.055.8%85.3%93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis45.8%47.3%49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084.3%79.9%63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.4Not yet publishedNot yet published78.6%93.3%43.7%Not yet publishedNot yet published82%78.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
gpt-oss-120b14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.034%88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202575.8%19.6%0.2%Not yet published52%Not yet published16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA36.3%45.3%
GPT-6 Sol44.4%57.6%89.8%94.3%47.9%61.6%64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.083.7%82.9%54.5%64%Not yet published
GPT-5.3-CodexNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis42.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published83.3%78.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 4 Argon57.6%61.8%86%96.4%57.1%77.5%69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.079.7%Not yet published48.3%87%78.7%
Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%56.6%68.4%95.4%47.8%59.9%59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.081.3%85.6%50.5%86.1%Not yet published
Gemma 4 31BNot yet published45.5%Not yet published85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond23.6%4.9%Not yet published69.7%73.4%10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified82.3%75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%58.7%59.6%94.4%47%35.4%Not yet published82%82.4%54.9%59.9%71.4%
Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.053.4%58.9%94.1%40.8%53%83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified80%83.2%66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified87.2%Not yet published
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%55.9%71.2%93.2%43.3%66.6%69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.182.7%80.6%39.6%Not yet published74.9%
DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%51%64.6%91.7%41%56.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published45.2%72%Not yet published
Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%60.8%Not yet published94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI52.5%73.3%79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.186.3%83.9%48.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Kimi K317.2%59.5%72.2%93.1%46.9%58.3%Not yet published88.7%80.5%50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified65.9%Not yet published
Kimi K2.7 Code1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.047.8%54%87.9%35%24.5%Not yet published79.3%Not yet published36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Mistral Large 424.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published57.8%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published26%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mistral Medium 3.50%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.040.2%Not yet published74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond13.8%6.3%Not yet published69.3%64.9%23%70.5%68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Grok 4.728.8%57.4%53%92.7%43.1%65.6%Not yet published76.7%Not yet published42.7%64.1%Not yet published
Grok 4.617.2%56.5%66%93.2%42.9%66.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified83.6%Not yet published
Grok 4.58.6%55%57.2%93.4%42.7%57.9%Not yet published79.3%80.4%48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified93.1%Not yet published
MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%53.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published48%72.5%61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.079.7%79.1%45.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mercury 33%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%51.6%55.8%90.2%39.9%60.4%59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.080%86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro28.2%65.4%Not yet published
GLM-5.338.9%59%68.8%90.9%42.3%62.2%Not yet published79.7%Not yet published32.3%71.5%Not yet published
GLM-5.21%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.051.2%59.2%Not yet published41.1%28.4%Not yet published78.3%Not yet published34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Muse Spark Open6.6%58.4%69.8%88.6%43.9%49.7%80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified78.3%80.9%42%Not yet published74.2%
Muse Wonder49.5%60.3%82.1%Not yet published50.1%68.1%72.6%Reported by Meta80.7%Not yet published38%42.7%Not yet published
Muse Spark 1.310.6%58.8%74%93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond48.7%57.9%69.6%83%82%38%25.8%Not yet published
Llama 4 ScoutNot yet published21.3%7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202551.8%3.8%0.2%Not yet published27.7%52.9%Not yet published70.1%39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Llama 4 MaverickNot yet published31.7%20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202567%4.9%0.2%Not yet published50%62.1%Not yet published58.3%43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.046.6%Not yet published90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond33.9%48.2%84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified82%76.3%17.3%Not yet published79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench
Qwen3.8 Max38.9%52.1%65.6%92.3%43.1%56.2%Not yet published80.3%82.8%29.5%65.3%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%60.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published49.4%58.6%82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified86.3%Not yet published34.8%66.5%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%51.3%Not yet publishedNot yet published35.1%64.1%80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified74.3%73.1%27.2%66.9%Not yet published
Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.056.8%Not yet publishedNot yet published43.5%67.5%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published26.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Step 5 Preview31.8%58.9%Not yet published93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond46.5%51%Not yet published88.3%76.4%36.4%59.7%Not yet published

Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0

  1. Claude Opus 5.565.2%
  2. Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
  4. GPT-6 Astra59.6%
  5. Claude Fable 5.158.1%
  6. Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
  7. GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
  8. Claude Opus 553.5%
  9. GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
  10. Muse Wonder49.5%
  11. GPT-6 Sol44.4%
  12. Claude Fable 541.4%
  13. GLM-5.338.9%
  14. Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
  17. Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
  18. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
  19. Step 5 Preview31.8%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
  21. Grok 4.728.8%
  22. MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
  23. MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
  24. Claude Opus 4.823.2%
  25. GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
  27. Kimi K317.2%
  28. Grok 4.617.2%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
  30. GPT-6 Luna13.6%
  31. GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
  32. Claude Sonnet 510.6%
  33. Muse Spark 1.310.6%
  34. Grok 4.58.6%
  35. Muse Spark Open6.6%
  36. Mercury 33%
  37. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
  38. Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  39. Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  40. GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  41. gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
  42. Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  43. Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  46. GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  47. 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

  1. Claude Opus 5.566.9%
  2. Claude Fable 5.163.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.561%
  5. Claude Fable 561%
  6. MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
  8. Muse Wonder60.3%
  9. Kimi K359.5%
  10. GLM-5.359%
  11. Step 5 Preview58.9%
  12. Muse Spark 1.358.8%
  13. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
  14. Muse Spark Open58.4%
  15. GPT-6 Sol57.6%
  16. Grok 4.757.4%
  17. GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
  18. Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
  20. GPT-6 Astra56.5%
  21. Grok 4.656.5%
  22. Claude Opus 556.4%
  23. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
  24. GPT-5.555.8%
  25. GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
  26. Claude Haiku 5.555%
  27. GPT-5.6 Terra55%
  28. Grok 4.555%
  29. GPT-6 Luna54.6%
  30. Claude Opus 4.754.5%
  31. Claude Opus 4.854.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 554.3%
  33. GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
  35. Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
  37. Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
  38. GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
  39. MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
  40. GLM-5.251.2%
  41. DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
  44. Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
  46. Gemma 4 31B45.5%
  47. Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
  48. Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b34%
  50. Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
  51. Llama 4 Scout21.3%

The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.

MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra93.7%
  3. Claude Opus 5.591.2%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
  5. Claude Fable 5.190.2%
  6. GPT-6 Sol89.8%
  7. GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
  9. Claude Fable 587%
  10. GPT-5.6 Terra86%
  11. Gemini 4 Argon86%
  12. Claude Opus 585.6%
  13. GPT-5.585.3%
  14. GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
  15. Muse Wonder82.1%
  16. Claude Opus 4.880%
  17. GPT-6 Luna78.9%
  18. GPT-5.478.6%
  19. Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
  20. Muse Spark 1.374%
  21. Kimi K372.2%
  22. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
  23. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  24. Muse Spark Open69.8%
  25. GLM-5.368.8%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
  27. Claude Opus 4.666%
  28. Grok 4.666%
  29. Claude Sonnet 565.6%
  30. Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
  31. DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
  32. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
  33. GLM-5.259.2%
  34. Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
  35. Grok 4.557.2%
  36. GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
  37. Kimi K2.7 Code54%
  38. Grok 4.753%
  39. Claude Opus 4.534.4%
  40. Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
  41. gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  43. Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  44. Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  45. 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

  1. Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
  2. GPT-6 Astra95.8%
  3. Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
  5. Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
  7. GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
  8. GPT-6 Sol94.3%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
  10. Claude Opus 593.9%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
  12. Grok 4.593.4%
  13. GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
  14. GPT-5.493.3%
  15. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
  16. Grok 4.693.2%
  17. Kimi K393.1%
  18. Grok 4.792.7%
  19. Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
  20. DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
  22. Claude Opus 4.891%
  23. GLM-5.390.9%
  24. Claude Opus 5.590.6%
  25. GPT-6 Luna90.5%
  26. GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
  27. Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
  28. Muse Spark Open88.6%
  29. Claude Opus 4.688.4%
  30. Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
  31. Claude Opus 4.786.4%
  32. Claude Opus 4.586%
  33. Claude Fable 585.9%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
  35. Claude Sonnet 580.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
  37. gpt-oss-120b75.8%
  38. Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
  39. Llama 4 Maverick67%
  40. Llama 4 Scout51.8%
  41. Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
  42. GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  43. Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  44. Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
  45. Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
  46. GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  47. Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  48. Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  49. 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

  1. Claude Opus 5.561.4%
  2. Claude Fable 5.159.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
  4. Claude Fable 555.5%
  5. Claude Sonnet 5.555%
  6. Claude Opus 554.9%
  7. GPT-6 Astra54.7%
  8. GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
  9. Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
  10. Muse Wonder50.1%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
  12. MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.7%
  14. Muse Spark 1.348.7%
  15. MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
  16. GPT-6 Sol47.9%
  17. Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
  18. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
  19. Kimi K346.9%
  20. Step 5 Preview46.5%
  21. GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
  22. GPT-5.545.8%
  23. Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
  24. Muse Spark Open43.9%
  25. GPT-5.443.7%
  26. Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
  27. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
  28. Grok 4.743.1%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
  30. GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
  31. Grok 4.642.9%
  32. Grok 4.542.7%
  33. GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
  34. Claude Opus 4.742.3%
  35. GLM-5.342.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 541.3%
  37. GLM-5.241.1%
  38. DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
  39. Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
  40. Claude Opus 4.639.9%
  41. GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
  42. GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
  43. GPT-6 Luna38.5%
  44. MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code35%
  46. Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
  47. Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
  48. Claude Opus 4.530.1%
  49. Gemma 4 31B23.6%
  50. gpt-oss-120b19.6%
  51. Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
  53. Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
  55. Llama 4 Scout3.8%

The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.

Tool useAutomationBench-AA

  1. Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
  2. Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
  3. MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
  5. Claude Opus 5.569.5%
  6. GPT-6 Astra68.5%
  7. Muse Wonder68.1%
  8. Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
  9. Grok 4.666.7%
  10. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
  11. Grok 4.765.6%
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
  13. MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
  14. GLM-5.362.2%
  15. GPT-6 Sol61.6%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
  17. GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
  18. GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
  21. Claude Fable 5.159.4%
  22. MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
  23. Kimi K358.3%
  24. Grok 4.557.9%
  25. Muse Spark 1.357.9%
  26. Mistral Large 457.8%
  27. DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
  28. Claude Opus 556.6%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
  30. Claude Fable 554.1%
  31. GPT-6 Luna53.2%
  32. Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
  33. Step 5 Preview51%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
  35. Muse Spark Open49.7%
  36. Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
  37. GPT-5.547.3%
  38. Claude Opus 4.845.6%
  39. Claude Sonnet 536.5%
  40. Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
  41. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
  42. GLM-5.228.4%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
  46. Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
  47. Gemma 4 31B4.9%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b0.2%
  50. Llama 4 Scout0.2%
  51. Llama 4 Maverick0.2%

The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.

Computer useOSWorld 2.1

  1. Claude Opus 577.7%
  2. Muse Spark 1.369.6%
  3. Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  4. Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  5. MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  6. Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
  7. MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  8. Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
  9. Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  10. Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
  11. Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  13. GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
  14. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  15. Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
  16. Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  17. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
  18. Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  19. GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  20. GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  22. GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  23. Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  24. Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
  25. Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  26. GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  27. Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  28. GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
  29. 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

  1. Kimi K388.7%
  2. Step 5 Preview88.3%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
  4. MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
  5. Claude Fable 5.185.3%
  6. Claude Opus 5.584.7%
  7. GPT-5.584.3%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol84%
  9. GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
  10. GPT-6 Sol83.7%
  11. GPT-6 Luna83.3%
  12. GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
  13. GPT-6.1 Sol83%
  14. GPT-5.6 Terra83%
  15. Muse Spark 1.383%
  16. Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
  17. Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
  18. GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
  19. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
  20. Claude Fable 582.3%
  21. Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
  22. Claude Sonnet 582%
  23. GPT-5.482%
  24. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
  25. Qwen3.8 27B82%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
  27. GPT-6 Astra80.7%
  28. Muse Wonder80.7%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
  30. Grok 4.680.3%
  31. Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.680%
  33. Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
  34. GLM-5.3-Flash80%
  35. Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
  37. GLM-5.379.7%
  38. Claude Opus 579.3%
  39. Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
  40. Grok 4.579.3%
  41. Claude Opus 4.778.7%
  42. GLM-5.278.3%
  43. Muse Spark Open78.3%
  44. Claude Opus 4.678%
  45. Claude Opus 4.877.7%
  46. Claude Opus 4.577.3%
  47. Grok 4.776.7%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
  49. MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
  50. Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
  51. Gemma 4 31B69.7%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
  53. gpt-oss-120b52%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick50%
  55. Llama 4 Scout27.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.

MultimodalMMMU-Pro

  1. Claude Opus 5.587.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra86.9%
  3. GPT-6.1 Sol86%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
  5. Claude Opus 584.7%
  6. GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
  10. GPT-6 Sol82.9%
  11. Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
  12. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
  13. Muse Spark 1.382%
  14. Muse Spark Open80.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
  16. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
  17. Kimi K380.5%
  18. Grok 4.580.4%
  19. GPT-5.579.9%
  20. GPT-6 Luna79.7%
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
  22. Claude Opus 4.778.8%
  23. GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
  24. GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
  25. GPT-5.478.4%
  26. Claude Sonnet 577.3%
  27. Step 5 Preview76.4%
  28. Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
  29. Claude Opus 4.675.4%
  30. Claude Opus 4.574%
  31. Gemma 4 31B73.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
  33. MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
  35. Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
  36. Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
  37. Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
  38. Llama 4 Scout52.9%
  39. Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
  40. 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

  1. Claude Fable 5.168.4%
  2. Claude Opus 5.565.5%
  3. Claude Fable 565.4%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
  5. GPT-6 Astra61.6%
  6. Claude Opus 560.9%
  7. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
  8. GPT-6 Sol54.5%
  9. Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
  10. Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
  11. Claude Opus 4.748.9%
  12. Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.8%
  14. Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
  15. GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
  16. Claude Opus 4.647%
  17. Claude Opus 4.546.6%
  18. DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
  19. MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
  20. Grok 4.742.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
  22. Muse Spark Open42%
  23. Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
  24. Claude Sonnet 540.1%
  25. GPT-6 Luna39.6%
  26. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
  27. Muse Wonder38%
  28. Muse Spark 1.338%
  29. Step 5 Preview36.4%
  30. MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
  31. Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
  33. GLM-5.332.3%
  34. Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
  35. GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
  36. MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
  37. Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
  38. Mistral Large 426%
  39. Mistral Medium 3.523%
  40. Claude Haiku 4.518%
  41. Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
  42. GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  43. Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  44. GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  45. Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  46. Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  47. Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  48. GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  49. Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  50. GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  51. gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
  52. 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

  1. Grok 4.593.1%
  2. Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon87%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
  5. Grok 4.683.6%
  6. Claude Opus 5.582.8%
  7. Gemma 4 31B82.3%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
  9. Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
  10. Claude Opus 573.7%
  11. Claude Fable 5.172.4%
  12. DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
  13. GLM-5.371.5%
  14. Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
  15. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  16. Llama 4 Scout70.1%
  17. GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
  18. GPT-6 Astra68.2%
  19. Claude Opus 4.867.4%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
  21. MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
  22. Kimi K365.9%
  23. GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
  24. Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
  25. Claude Fable 564.8%
  26. Grok 4.764.1%
  27. GPT-6 Sol64%
  28. GPT-6 Luna63.4%
  29. Claude Opus 4.659.9%
  30. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
  31. Step 5 Preview59.7%
  32. Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
  33. Claude Opus 4.557.5%
  34. Muse Wonder42.7%
  35. gpt-oss-120b36.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
  37. Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
  38. Muse Spark 1.325.8%
  39. Claude Haiku 4.524.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.

Instruction followingMultiChallenge

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol82%
  2. Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
  3. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
  5. Muse Spark Open74.2%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
  7. Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
  8. Claude Opus 4.559%
  9. Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
  10. Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
  11. gpt-oss-120b45.3%
  12. Claude Opus 4.637.2%
  13. Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
  14. GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  15. Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  16. GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  17. GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  18. GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  19. GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  21. Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  22. Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  23. Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  24. Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  25. Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  26. Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  27. Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  28. 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 4.6 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.

Every measure on record for Claude Sonnet 4.6: the value, the run it comes from, the publisher and the day it was read
MeasureClaude Sonnet 4.6RunSourceRead
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.1ManthropicOct 28, 2026
Max outputThe most tokens the model writes in one response.128KanthropicOct 28, 2026
ReadsThe kinds of input the model accepts.Text, ImagesArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LicenceThe terms the weights or the service are offered under.Commercial Terms of ServiceAnthropicNov 1, 2026
Open weightsWhether the maker publishes the weights for anyone to run.NoArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Routes offering itOf the 19 clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, how many offer the release today, preview included.14 of 19GILD route matrixOct 28, 2026
Cost
Answer tokens per taskLower is better. Answer tokens per Intelligence Index task, reasoning excluded.18,708Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.97Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.34Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$1.36Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$1.12Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.84Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per taskLower is better. What one Intelligence Index task cost AA at list price, input, cache, output and reasoning tokens together.$2.49Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 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.$4,925Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is.74,917Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task.56,210Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Speed
End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt.148 sClaude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs.141 sClaude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them.49 tokens/sClaude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High)Artificial AnalysisOct 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.1,006 sClaude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 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 sClaude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High)Artificial AnalysisOct 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.48.4%Max effortArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly.40.9%Max effortArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100.12.2Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 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.32.8%Max effortEpoch AIAug 27, 2026
Knowledge work
AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval.1,062Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
AnalystAgent (AA run)AA's AnalystAgent score for analyst workflows.20%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
APEX-Agents (AA run)AA's run of APEX-Agents professional tasks.28.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
APEX-Agents (maintainers)APEX-Agents pass@1 from the maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it.43%High effortMercor (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes.15.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval.1,233Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
MLCR (AA run)AA's MLCR overall score for long, multi-document reading.7.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Vending-Bench 2Vending-Bench 2 final balance of a simulated vending business run by the model, as Epoch AI republishes it.$7,204Andon Labs (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Capability beyond the chart
AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy.68.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,327Medium effortSakana AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
ARC-AGI-2ARC-AGI-2 score from the ARC Prize maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it.58.3%Max effortARC Prize Foundation (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.23%Max effortEpoch AIOct 13, 2026
CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run.3.1%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
DeepSWEDeepSWE pass@1, as Epoch AI republishes it.29.9%High effortDatacurve (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it.89.9%Max effortRedwood Research (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch Capabilities Index: Epoch AI's composite across its benchmark hub, with its confidence interval.153Claude Sonnet 4.6Epoch AIOct 26, 2026
GPQA Diamond (AA run)GPQA Diamond accuracy in AA's run.79.9%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run.78.8%Max effortEpoch AIAug 6, 2026
Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run.13.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
IFBench (AA run)Instruction-following accuracy on IFBench in AA's run.56.6%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points.24.7Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
IT-Bench SRE (AA run)AA's IT-Bench SRE score for incident and reliability agents.39.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 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.46.5Max effortRedwood Research (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
MMMU-Pro (AA run)Multimodal understanding accuracy on MMMU-Pro in AA's run.73.3%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.14%Epoch AIAug 6, 2026
OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch)Share of OTIS Mock AIME 2024 to 2025 problems solved, Epoch AI's run.71.1%Max effortEpoch AIAug 6, 2026
ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it.45%Max effortVals AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run.50.1%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
tau-Banking (AA run)AA's tau-Banking tool-use score.34.4%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
tau2-Bench (AA run)AA's tau2-Bench tool-use score.75.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness.3.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
WebDev ArenaWebDev Arena score from human pairwise votes on web builds, with its 95% interval, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,521LMArena (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Domains
EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points.42.4Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points.31.4Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points.33.5Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Healthcare and medicalArtificial Analysis capability score for healthcare and medical questions, 0 to 100 points.28.7Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points.37.2Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points.30.3Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026

Routes, prices and uptime

Where Claude Sonnet 4.6 is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.

Where it is offered

14 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer Claude Sonnet 4.6 today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.

RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
Amazon BedrockAvailableanthropic.claude-sonnet-4-6 (InvokeModel)us./eu./au./jp./global. profiles; no bedrock-mantle; Active, EOL not sooner than Feb 17, 2027; tiers: Standard and Reserved; context / output 1M / 64K (Anthropic says 128K)Amazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Claude Sonnet 4.6
AntigravityAvailablenot statedpicker label Claude Sonnet 4.6 (thinking) *Antigravity: Free/Plus and Pro until removal Nov 2, 2026; Gemini CLI serves Gemini models onlyGoogle
Claude CodeAvailableclaude-sonnet-4-6By full model name on the Anthropic API, or provider ARN, version or deployment name; aliases resolve per provider; the sonnet alias resolves to Sonnet 4.6 on Claude Platform on AWS; 1M context only through the [1m] variant, whose access depends on plan (page read Oct 28, 2026)Anthropic
Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)Availableclaude-sonnet-4-6Claude API model IDs (dated IDs use a hyphen)Anthropic, Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic, Claude Models on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)
Claude Platform on AWSAvailableclaude-sonnet-4-6Same ID as the Claude APIAnthropic
CursorAvailableavailable, hidden by default; Premium plan or higher, API list priceAnysphere (Cursor)
DatabricksAvailabledatabricks-claude-sonnet-4-6availableDatabricks, Databricks-hosted inferenceDatabricks, Detailed list of models supported by Databricks Foundation Model APIs
The maker's own APIAvailableclaude-sonnet-4-6context / max output 1M / 128K; status per deprecations tableAnthropic, Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic, Model deprecations
GitHub CopilotRetirednot statedpicker label Claude Sonnet 4.6Retired 2026-09-01; still available to individual annual Copilot Pro and Pro+ subscribers onlyGitHub, Supported AI models in GitHub Copilot
GitHub ModelsRetirednot applicableservice retiredservice retired July 30, 2026GitHub, GitHub Models
Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed)Availableclaude-sonnet-4-6 (GA)retirement not stated on page; input / output 1,000,000 / 128,000Google, Anthropic's Claude on Google Cloud modelsGoogle, Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 4.6 on Google CloudAnthropic
Microsoft FoundryAvailableclaude-sonnet-4-6deployment name defaults to model ID; hosted on Anthropic only; context 1M; no Message Batches APIAnthropicMicrosoft Learn
OpenCodeAvailableclaude-sonnet-4-6OpenCode Zen gateway, Anthropic Messages endpointAnomaly (OpenCode), ModelsOpenCode (Anomaly)
OpenRouterAvailableanthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6context / max completion 1,000,000 / 128,000OpenRouter
Snowflake CortexAvailableclaude-sonnet-4-6Regions: Cross Cloud (Any Region); AWS US (Cross-Region); AWS US Commercial Gov (Cross-Region); AWS EU (Cross-Region); AWS APJ (Cross-Region); AWS JP (Cross-Region); AWS AU (Cross-Region); AWS Europe West 2 (London). Context 1,000,000; maximum output 64,000 tokens.Snowflake
Windsurf / DevinAvailableclaude-sonnet-4-6claude-sonnet-4-6-1mclaude-sonnet-4-6-thinkingclaude-sonnet-4-6-thinking-1mavailable (incl. 1M variant)Cognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), AI ModelsCognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), Compliance and Availability

3 routes do not say: Codex, Gemini CLI and Grok Build.

What each of these 3 routes' pages say, with sources
RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
CodexNot statedCodex model docs list OpenAI models only
Gemini CLINot statedRegion, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages.
Grok BuildNot statedGrok Build pages name only grok-4.7xAI (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.

RouteStandard, in / outCache readOther ratesSource, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits
Claude APIMakerLowest$3 / $15Anthropic, Oct 26, 2026
Artificial Analysis price record$3 / $15$0.3Blended $6, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $2.31, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 outputCache write $3.75Artificial 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 4.6 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.

  1. Claude Haiku

    Anthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.

    2 releases

    1. 4.5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$1 / $5Speed97 tok/s
    2. 5.5Current. In 6 products we coverPrice$0.10 / $0.50Speed240.7 tok/s

  2. Claude Sonnet

    Anthropic's balanced Claude model family.

    4 releases

    1. 4.5Deprecated. In 4 products we coverPrice$3 / $15Speed52.3 tok/s
    2. This page4.6Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$3 / $15Speed65.5 tok/s
    3. 5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$2 / $10Speed85.8 tok/s
    4. 5.5Current. In 9 products we coverPrice$2 / $10Speed140.1 tok/s

  3. Claude Opus

    Anthropic's high-capability Claude model family.

    6 releases

    1. 4.5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed58.8 tok/s
    2. 4.6Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed47.7 tok/s
    3. 4.7Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed54.7 tok/s
    4. 4.8Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed65.9 tok/s
    5. 5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed53.3 tok/s
    6. 5.5Current. In 9 products we coverPrice$4 / $20Speed98.4 tok/s

  4. Claude Fable

    Anthropic's Claude family for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.

    2 releases

    1. 5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$10 / $50Speed70.2 tok/s
    2. 5.1Current. In 8 products we coverPrice$10 / $50Speed66.4 tok/s

Products

We cover 4 products that offer Claude Sonnet 4.6 today: 3 subscriptions and 1 API.

Through a subscription

  1. 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.AI Coding AgentSupported
  2. Claude Code+75 Strong positiveAnthropic's agentic coding product for terminal and IDE workflows.AI Coding AgentSupported
  3. Cursor+11 MixedAI coding agent and code editor for writing, reviewing, and shipping software, with agents in the editor, the terminal, and the cloud.AI Coding AgentSupported

Through an API

  1. Claude API+25 PositiveDeveloper access to Claude models through Anthropic's platform.AI Model APISupported

Comparisons

GILD comparisons that name Claude Sonnet 4.6, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.

What practitioners report

Strongest on Long context, weakest on Reliability.

Each figure is the share of accounts naming Claude Sonnet 4.6 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.

Share of practitioner accounts favorable to Claude Sonnet 4.6 on each of seven axes, with the accounts behind each figure
AxisFavorableAccounts
Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency.67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors
Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track.29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors
Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs.71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors
Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers.57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors
CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save.50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors
SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput.17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors
ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked.17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors
Every model on these seven axes
Share of accounts favorable on each axis for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and every other model GILD has accounts for
AxisClaude Sonnet 4.6Claude Haiku 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Fable 5.1Claude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 5Claude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5Claude Sonnet 4.5GPT-6.1 TerraGPT-6.1 SolGPT-6 LunaGPT-6 AstraGPT-5.6 SolGPT-5.6 TerraGPT-5.6 LunaGPT-5.5GPT-5.4gpt-oss-120bGPT-6 SolGPT-5.3-CodexGemini 4 ArgonGemini 3.8 FlashGemma 4 31BGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3.6 FlashDeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek V4 ProKimi K3.1 ProKimi K3Kimi K2.7 CodeMistral Large 4Mistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.7Grok 4.6Grok 4.5MiniMax M3.1 FlashMercury 3GLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3GLM-5.2Muse Spark OpenMuse WonderMuse Spark 1.3Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 MaverickQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 MaxMiMo-V2.6-ProMiMo-V2.6-FlashLing 3.1 FlashStep 5 Preview
Quality and reasoning67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors
Tool use and structured output29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Long context71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Developer experience57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yetNo accounts yet14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yet33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yet35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authorsNo accounts yet9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Cost50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authorsOnly praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author
Speed17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Reliability17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
The 47 accounts behind Claude Sonnet 4.6's figures

GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter and the web for accounts that name Claude Sonnet 4.6.

Quality and reasoning 67%

  • Favorable
    Anecdotally we ran sonnet 4.6 for our more complex stuff and sonnet 5 was a LOT worse

    Comment on: Claude Haiku 5.5. d1l, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 for the team's more complex workloads, against Sonnet 5 and Sonnet 5.5.

  • Unfavorable
    Good structure, guardrails, but less comprehensive than Haiku

    You're Probably Using the Wrong Bedrock Model. Here's How to Tell.. Brian Carpio, Founder and CEO of OutcomeOps, Apr 1, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 on Amazon Bedrock in a RAG pipeline against Haiku 4.5 and six other models.

  • Favorable
    I switched back to even Sonnet 4.6 in Claude Code over Opus 4.7. Every day or two I try a new task on Opus 4.7 and regret it

    Comment on: Microsoft starts canceling Claude Code licenses. epistasis, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 23, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 in Claude Code against Opus 4.7.

  • Favorable
    It is smart, methodical and excellent at tool calling in our custom environments

    Comment on: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks. gertlabs, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 29, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 in Gert Labs' agentic coding evaluations and internal use.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet found and corrected all mistakes in the second round

    Comment on: Claude Sonnet 5. sixtyj, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 rewriting an article, against GLM-5.2.

  • Favorable
    We're still on Sonnet 4.6 as we found Sonnet 5 to perform worse across all of our evals

    Comment on: Sonnet 5.5. Shayk, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 in the commenter's team evals against Sonnet 5.

  • Favorable
    I found sonnet 4.6 better at solving problems without creating other problems

    Comment on: You shouldn't copy-paste errors into Claude Code. VaderAi, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 2, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 in Claude Code against Fable 5 on fixing errors.

  • Favorable
    I find that Deepseek Pro to be below Sonnet 4.6 for much of the coding/review/executing tasks from plan

    Comment on: Leaked OpenAI financials show $38.5B loss and compute burn. xela79, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 17, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 on coding, review and plan execution against DeepSeek Pro and GLM 5.1.

  • Unfavorable
    It is such a downgrade. I don't understand how that's even possible

    Comment on: Running local models is good now. hypfer, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 16, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.6 after weeks on a local Qwen3.6-27B.

  • Unfavorable
    Within half an hour I had several situations when I just could not believe how stupid Claude was

    Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. jansan, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 28, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 in an older Claude Code plugin for VS Code.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 4.6 invented its own conventions that were rejected during CR by another dev

    Comment on: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus. kgeist, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 22, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 against a local Qwen3.6-27b on extending existing code.

  • Unfavorable
    It's also not very good at diagnosing non-trivial issues

    Comment on: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks. yfontana, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 29, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 for client work.

  • Favorable
    Letting Sonnet 4.6 do it instead always yields much better results

    Comment on: Liquid AI reveals 8B-A1B MoE trained on 38T. steve_adams_86, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 against a local Liquid AI model for triaging messages.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 4.6 is better at writing good emails than Opus 4.8, Fable 5, and even Sonnet 5

    Comment on: I used to love Claude, but the latest models are slowly ruining it. webninja, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 12, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 for chat and writing, against Opus 4.8, Fable 5 and Sonnet 5.

  • Favorable
    is amongst the leading models in intelligence

    Claude Sonnet 4.6 (non-reasoning, high) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High) as measured by Artificial Analysis.

  • Favorable
    Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max) is above average in intelligence

    Claude Sonnet 4.6 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max) with reasoning, as measured by Artificial Analysis.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 4.6 produced cleaner, magazine-like editorial design with more sophisticated content card layouts and refined typography

    Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Sonnet 4.5: A Real-World Comparison. Tony Spiro, CEO of Cosmic, Feb 17, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 against Sonnet 4.5, building the same blog application through the Cosmic AI Platform.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 4.6 caught it first. The other two models suggested index optimization (also correct), but missed the actual breaking bug

    I Tested Sonnet 4.6 Two Ways. One of Them Got Personal. Pawel Jozefiak, author of the Digital Thoughts newsletter, self-described, Feb 17, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 in a blind coding test against Claude 3 Haiku and GPT-4o mini, and on 41,000 tokens of drafts.

  • Favorable
    The reasoning capability here is startlingly good at catching edge cases before writing a single line of code

    No, It's Not Sonnet 5 (And That's a Good Thing): Meet Sonnet 4.6. Ari Messer, Kilo Code blog, self-described, Feb 17, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 in Kilo Code, best results with extended thinking at medium effort.

  • Unfavorable
    If Opus gets it right in one pass and Sonnet takes two attempts plus debugging, you just paid more for worse output

    Early take on Sonnet-4.6: use Opus-4.6 instead. Aakash Gupta, author of the Product Growth newsletter, on X, self-described, Feb 17, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 at launch, against Opus 4.6.

Tool use and structured output 29%

Long context 71%

  • Unfavorable
    When making streaming requests to `claude-sonnet-4-6` with ~100K+ input tokens, the stream stalls for **50–180 seconds** before emitting the first token of a tool call's argument content

    Stream stalls for 50–180s before next token when generating large tool call arguments (~100K input tokens). pilot617, GitHub issue author, self-described, Apr 27, 2026. claude-sonnet-4-6 (Sonnet 4.6) streaming through the Messages API with about 100K input tokens and 108 to 118 tools.

  • Favorable
    950K input tokens: succeeds

    Amazon Bedrock Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6 context window is 1M, not 200K. sergical, GitHub issue author, self-described, Mar 18, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-sonnet-4-6 (Sonnet 4.6) on the Bedrock Converse API.

  • Favorable
    the breathing space of 1M context is great for browser use

    Comment on: Claude Sonnet 4.6. nikcub, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 17, 2026. claude-sonnet-4-6 (Sonnet 4.6) with the 1M context window in Claude Code with Claude in Chrome.

  • Favorable
    I asked Claude Sonnet 4.6 to read it all and boil it down to markdown file with business requirements

    Comment on: Ask HN: What was your "oh shit" moment with GenAI?. fowlie, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 5, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.6 reading a 70k-line PL/SQL application.

  • Unfavorable
    Across a full-day coding session, Claude Sonnet 4.6 exhibited **repeated and systematic behavioral failures** requiring multiple user corrections and reversions

    Bug Report , claude-sonnet-4-6 , Systematic Behavioral Degradation in Long Sessions. YvesMartinSWD, GitHub issue author, self-described, Apr 14, 2026. claude-sonnet-4-6 (Sonnet 4.6) in the Claude Code VS Code extension on Claude Max, a six-hour session.

  • Favorable
    sonnect 4.6 beats opus 4.6 on GDPval-AA, Terminal-Bench Hard, AA Long context Reasoning, IFBench

    Comment on: GPT-5.4. 0123456789ABCDE, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Mar 5, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 against Opus 4.6 on Artificial Analysis evaluations.

  • Favorable
    The 1M token context window changes what's possible for document-heavy workflows

    Early take on Sonnet-4.6: use Opus-4.6 instead. Aakash Gupta, author of the Product Growth newsletter, on X, self-described, Feb 17, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 at launch, against Opus 4.6.

Developer experience 57%

  • Unfavorable
    Missing `[1m]` on any one of these variables silently limits that model to 200k context, with no warning or error

    Bedrock: 1M context (context-1m beta) should auto-enable for capable models. KevinZhao, GitHub issue author, self-described, Mar 10, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6 in Claude Code on Amazon Bedrock, global cross-Region profiles.

  • Unfavorable
    It seems that extra-usage is required to use the 1M context window for Sonnet 4.6. This differs from Sonnet 4.5

    Comment on: Claude Sonnet 4.6. edverma2, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Feb 17, 2026. claude-sonnet-4-6[1m] (Sonnet 4.6) in Claude Code on a Max plan.

  • Unfavorable
    The thing has so many strongly-held opinions I did not ever ask it for, talking just way too much and generally feeling somehow dumber

    Comment on: Running local models is good now. hypfer, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 16, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.6 after weeks on a local Qwen3.6-27B.

  • Favorable
    I found sonnet 4.6 to strike a really nice balance when combined with superpowers between thinking logically and proactively while checking in with me for any major decision

    Comment on: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?. byra, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 15, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 with the superpowers skills.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 4.6 is the last Anthropic model to offer a "temperature" setting

    Comment on: LinkedIn CringeBot 3000. allcharm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 12, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.6 as the main model of the commenter's app.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 4.6 is still amazingly capable for so many programming tasks, especially if you already have some reasonable level of experience to steer it in the right direction

    Comment on: M5 Ultra Mac Studio Review. brandon272, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 21, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 for programming tasks.

  • Unfavorable
    It's also notably slow and very verbose

    Claude Sonnet 4.6 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Max) with reasoning, as measured by Artificial Analysis.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 4.6 offers strong performance at any thinking effort, even with extended thinking off

    No, It's Not Sonnet 5 (And That's a Good Thing): Meet Sonnet 4.6. Ari Messer, Kilo Code blog, self-described, Feb 17, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 in Kilo Code, best results with extended thinking at medium effort.

Cost 50%

Speed 17%

Reliability 17%

  • Unfavorable
    Since Sonnet 5's release week, Sonnet 4.6 has been feeling like a vegetable

    Comment on: GPT-5.6. perching_aix, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 9, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 before and after the Sonnet 5 release week.

  • Favorable
    Qwen3.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6/4.7 will work as far as they can given direction and a way to test their work.

    Comment on: Backpressure is all you need. entrope, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 31, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.6 in agent loops with tests.

  • Unfavorable
    Claude Code 2.1.183 running Sonnet 4.6 consistently fails with 529 Overloaded during long-running code migration audits after ~20–25 minutes of analysis

    [Bug] API ERROR 529 Overload with sonnet 4.6 model. khatib-313, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jun 23, 2026. Sonnet 4.6 in Claude Code 2.1.183 on the Anthropic API, long migration audit.

  • Unfavorable
    immediately returns `Rate limit reached` error when spawning a subagent via Claude Code Agent tool, despite usage dashboard showing 0% Sonnet usage

    Sonnet model returns 'Rate limit reached' despite 0% usage. xlurie, GitHub issue author, self-described, Mar 18, 2026. claude-sonnet-4-6 (Sonnet 4.6) as a Claude Code subagent in VS Code.

  • Unfavorable
    consistently receive API Error: Rate limit reached when using the claude-sonnet-4-6[1m] (1M context) model in Claude Code

    [Bug] Anthropic API Error: Rate limit reached on claude-sonnet-4-6-1m with Claude Pro plan. petja-n-petkova, GitHub issue author, self-described, Feb 22, 2026. claude-sonnet-4-6[1m] (Sonnet 4.6 with 1M context) in Claude Code on a Pro plan.

  • Unfavorable
    ongoing Sonnet 4.6 infrastructure instability** that has persisted since the model's launch on February 17, 2026

    Bug Report , claude-sonnet-4-6 , Systematic Behavioral Degradation in Long Sessions. YvesMartinSWD, GitHub issue author, self-described, Apr 14, 2026. claude-sonnet-4-6 (Sonnet 4.6) in the Claude Code VS Code extension on Claude Max, a six-hour session.