Skip to main content

Claude Sonnet model by Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 5

An earlier Claude Sonnet release for agentic, coding, and everyday work.

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 5. 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 5
Released
Jun 30, 2026 Legacy
In its family
Release 3 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 5

  • Claude Sonnet 5

Suggested comparisons

The models a buyer weighs against Claude Sonnet 5, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Claude Sonnet 5.

Claude Sonnet 5AnthropicThis page, always on the chart

Ranked against the 40 current releases on this chart, Claude Sonnet 5's best rank is 18th of 39 on Long context. On Computer use, Anthropic's own figures on OSWorld 2.1 put Claude Sonnet 5 23.1 points under Claude Sonnet 5.5. It ranks lowest on Science, 24th of 25 and Tool use, 33rd of 39. Instruction following: not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026. Answers in full: published only for another harness, setting or build, listed in the table.

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 5This pageResults on 10 of 12 axes$2 / $1086 tokens/sFirst token in 98 s

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

Claude Sonnet 5 on each axis10 of 12 with a result

Beside the benchmarks

Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Claude Sonnet 5, with where each figure sits among the 41 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.

Cost

$5.09per task

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

Speed

84tokens a second

Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at max effort.

First token
208 s
Whole answer
214 s

Capacity

1Mtokens

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

Reads
Text, Images

Quality

38.2of 100

Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at max effort.

GDPval knowledge work
1,464 Elo
Terminal-Bench 4.0
14.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index
157

Hallucination

39.4%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
40.1%

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 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 5: Cached input and Max output.

Every value with its benchmark, run and source

Claude Sonnet 5's result on each axis, with the benchmark, the setting and run, who reported it, the source and the date
AxisBenchmark and settingClaude Sonnet 5RunSourceDate
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness10.6%Claude Sonnet 5Effort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent.Vals.aiOct 24, 2026
CodeSciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run54.3%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run65.6%Effort: max. Harness: none.Epoch AIJun 30, 2026
ScienceGPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run80.3%Effort: max. Harness: none.Epoch AIJun 30, 2026
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools41.3%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Tool useAutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run36.5%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Computer useOSWorld 2.1Partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release. Anthropic reran it for the Sonnet 5.5 launch, averaged over five runs. The share of tasks fully completed is 25.6%.57%Claude Sonnet 5 (max)Effort: max. Harness: Anthropic computer-use harness.AnthropicReported by AnthropicSep 28, 2026
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run82%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MultimodalMMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools77.3%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
FactualityAA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run40.1%Hallucination rate 39.4% in the same run (lower is better)Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Answers in fullSpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entryPublished only for another harness, setting or build, listed in the tableNot drawn: SpeechMap.AI 40.9% at another setting, Oct 27, 2026. Source
Instruction followingMultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI runNot yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026

Price and speed

  • Claude Sonnet 5 lists at $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens. Anthropic pricing, Oct 26, 2026.
  • Claude Sonnet 5, at max effort, writes 85.8 output tokens per second on Anthropic's API, and its first token arrives 98 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

Every measure on record for Claude Sonnet 5: the value, the run it comes from, the publisher and the day it was read
MeasureClaude Sonnet 5RunSourceRead
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.1MAnthropic's pricing page: Claude 4.6 and later models, except Claude Haiku 5.5, include the full 1M token context windowAnthropicOct 28, 2026
ReadsThe kinds of input the model accepts.Text, ImagesArtificial AnalysisOct 26, 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 26, 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.29,395Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$3.13Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.73Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$3.91Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$1.18Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.88Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cost per taskLower is better. What one Intelligence Index task cost AA at list price, input, cache, output and reasoning tokens together.$5.09Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 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.$6,998Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is.117,787Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task.88,392Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Speed
End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt.214 sClaude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs.208 sClaude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them.84 tokens/sClaude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 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.878 sClaude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 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.208 sClaude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 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.39.4%Max effortArtificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly.40.1%Max effortArtificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100.16.4Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 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.33.7%Max effortEpoch AIAug 27, 2026
Knowledge work
AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval.1,357Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
AnalystAgent (AA run)AA's AnalystAgent score for analyst workflows.46.3%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
APEX-Agents (maintainers)APEX-Agents pass@1 from the maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it.54.5%Mercor (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes.13.2%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval.1,464Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
MLCR (AA run)AA's MLCR overall score for long, multi-document reading.5%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Vending-Bench 2Vending-Bench 2 final balance of a simulated vending business run by the model, as Epoch AI republishes it.$6,378Andon Labs (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Capability beyond the chart
AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy.82%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,463High effortSakana AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.45%Max effortEpoch AIOct 13, 2026
CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run.16.9%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
CursorBenchCursorBench score from Cursor, as Epoch AI republishes it.34.1%Max effortCursor (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
DeepSWEDeepSWE pass@1, as Epoch AI republishes it.53.8%Max effortDatacurve (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it.92.5%Max effortRedwood Research (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
EnterpriseOps-Gym (AA run)AA's EnterpriseOps-Gym score for enterprise operations agents.44.7%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch Capabilities Index: Epoch AI's composite across its benchmark hub, with its confidence interval.157Claude Sonnet 5Epoch AIOct 26, 2026
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tier 4 research math problems solved, Epoch AI's run.29.3%Max effortEpoch AIJun 30, 2026
FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 problems solved, Epoch AI's run.65.6%Max effortEpoch AIJun 30, 2026
GPQA Diamond (AA run)GPQA Diamond accuracy in AA's run.91.1%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run.80.3%Max effortEpoch AIAug 6, 2026
Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run.41.3%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points.38.2Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 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.49.3Max effortRedwood Research (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
MMMU-Pro (AA run)Multimodal understanding accuracy on MMMU-Pro in AA's run.77.3%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.35%Max effortEpoch AIJul 28, 2026
OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch)Share of OTIS Mock AIME 2024 to 2025 problems solved, Epoch AI's run.80%Max effortEpoch AIAug 6, 2026
ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it.77%Max effortVals AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run.54.3%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
tau-Banking (AA run)AA's tau-Banking tool-use score.37.3%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness.14.1%Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
WebDev ArenaWebDev Arena score from human pairwise votes on web builds, with its 95% interval, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,537High effortLMArena (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Domains
EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points.49.4Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points.40.2Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points.40.4Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Healthcare and medicalArtificial Analysis capability score for healthcare and medical questions, 0 to 100 points.35.3Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points.42.3Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points.39.2Claude Sonnet 5 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026

Routes, prices and uptime

Where Claude Sonnet 5 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 5 today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.

RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
Amazon BedrockAvailableanthropic.claude-sonnet-5us./eu./au./in./global. profiles; Active, EOL not sooner than June 30, 2027; tiers: Standard only; context / output 1M / 128KAmazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Claude Sonnet 5
Claude CodeAvailableclaude-sonnet-5By full model name on the Anthropic API, or provider ARN, version or deployment name; aliases resolve per provider; a pinned Sonnet 5 ID runs with its native 1M window without the [1m] suffix (page read Oct 28, 2026)Anthropic
Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)Availableclaude-sonnet-5Claude API model IDs (dated IDs use a hyphen)Anthropic, Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic, Claude Models on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)
Claude Platform on AWSAvailableclaude-sonnet-5Same ID as the Claude APIAnthropic
CursorAvailableavailable, hidden by default; Premium plan or higher, API list priceAnysphere (Cursor)
DatabricksAvailabledatabricks-claude-sonnet-5availableDatabricks, Databricks-hosted inferenceDatabricks, Detailed list of models supported by Databricks Foundation Model APIs
The maker's own APIAvailableclaude-sonnet-5context / max output 1M / 128K; status per deprecations tableAnthropic, Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic, Model deprecations
GitHub CopilotAvailablenot statedpicker label Claude Sonnet 5available (GA)GitHub
GitHub ModelsRetirednot applicableservice retiredservice retired July 30, 2026GitHub, GitHub Models
Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed)Availableclaude-sonnet-5 (GA)retirement not sooner than Dec 24, 2026; input / output 1,000,000 / 128,000Google, Anthropic's Claude on Google Cloud modelsGoogle, Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 5 on Google CloudAnthropic
Microsoft FoundryAvailableclaude-sonnet-5deployment name defaults to model ID; hosted on Azure and Anthropic; context 1M; no Message Batches APIAnthropicMicrosoft Learn
OpenCodeAvailableclaude-sonnet-5OpenCode Zen gateway, Anthropic Messages endpointAnomaly (OpenCode), ModelsOpenCode (Anomaly)
OpenRouterAvailableanthropic/claude-sonnet-5context / max completion 1,000,000 / 128,000OpenRouter
Snowflake CortexAvailableclaude-sonnet-5Regions: Cross Cloud (Any Region); AWS US (Cross-Region); AWS EU (Cross-Region); AWS APJ (Cross-Region); AWS AU (Cross-Region). Context 1,000,000; maximum output 64,000 tokens.Snowflake
Windsurf / DevinAvailableclaude-sonnet-5-highclaude-sonnet-5-lowclaude-sonnet-5-maxclaude-sonnet-5-mediumclaude-sonnet-5-xhighavailableCognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), AI ModelsCognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), Compliance and Availability

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
RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
AntigravityNot offerednot listed; Gemini CLI serves Gemini models onlyGoogle
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 $2 / $10 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$2 / $10Anthropic, Oct 26, 2026
Artificial Analysis price record$2 / $10$0.2Blended $4, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $1.54, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 outputCache write $2.50Artificial Analysis, Oct 26, 2026

Lineup

Anthropic's 14 releases in 4 families, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. Claude Sonnet 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.

  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. 4.6Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$3 / $15Speed65.5 tok/s
    3. This page5Legacy. 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 5 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 5, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.

What practitioners report

Strongest on Tool use and structured output, weakest on Developer experience.

Each figure is the share of accounts naming Claude Sonnet 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.

Share of practitioner accounts favorable to Claude Sonnet 5 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.56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors
Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track.70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors
Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs.50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors
Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers.29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors
CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save.39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors
SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput.44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors
ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked.63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors
Every model on these seven axes
Share of accounts favorable on each axis for Claude Sonnet 5 and every other model GILD has accounts for
AxisClaude Sonnet 5Claude Haiku 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Fable 5.1Claude Opus 5Claude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 4.7Claude Sonnet 4.6Claude 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 reasoning56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 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 authors68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 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 output70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 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 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 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 context50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 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 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors71%5 favorable, 2 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 experience29%2 favorable, 5 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 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 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
Cost39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 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 authors8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 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
Speed44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 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 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 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
Reliability63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 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 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 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 54 accounts behind Claude Sonnet 5's figures

GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter and the web for accounts that name Claude Sonnet 5.

Quality and reasoning 56%

  • Favorable
    Claude Sonnet 5 (Max) is above average in intelligence

    Claude Sonnet 5 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 at max effort on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.

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

    Comment on Hacker News. d1l, Hacker News commenter running customer workloads on Sonnet, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Sonnet 5 on the commenter's more complex customer workloads, against Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5.5.

  • Favorable
    we found Sonnet 5 is more capable than Sonnet 4.6

    Comment on Hacker News. gertlabs, Hacker News account of the Gert Labs model rankings, self-described, Jul 1, 2026. Sonnet 5 in Gert Labs coding evaluations, one-shot and agentic.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5 is a LOT better out of the box. It's one-shotting complex instructions.

    Comment on Hacker News. boutell, Hacker News commenter building the ApostropheCMS editing agent, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Sonnet 5 powering an editing agent in ApostropheCMS, early tests.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5 is the worst model of 2026

    Comment on Hacker News. criley2, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 27, 2026. Sonnet 5 against Opus at lower effort.

  • Favorable
    it's quite effective for creating typical websites for small and medium businesses

    Comment on Hacker News. ianberdin (Ruslan Ianberdin), Founder & CEO of Playcode, Jul 13, 2026. Sonnet 5 as a default model in playcode.io, against Opus 4.8, Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6.

  • Favorable
    it gets most things right most of the time at first try

    Comment on Hacker News. plqbfbv, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 24, 2026. Sonnet 5 at medium effort as a daily driver.

  • Favorable
    sonnet 5 is very noticeably a much better model than any opus that ive touched

    Comment on Hacker News. 8note, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 1, 2026. Sonnet 5 in agentic coding.

  • Favorable
    It read the implementation of the compiler and the runtime, found the bug, fixed it, fixed the example

    Comment on Hacker News. butterisgood, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Sonnet 5 debugging an experimental programming language.

  • Favorable
    I tried with Sonnet 5 and it correctly found the issue where an unhandled case was continuing to retry and failing

    Comment on Hacker News. cyral, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 18, 2026. Sonnet 5 fixing a slow-page bug, against GPT-5.6 Terra.

  • Unfavorable
    I just tried playing Claude Sonnet 5 (high), and it made its first illegal move on move 5

    Comment on Hacker News. little_endorian, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 16, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 at high effort playing chess960.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5 is not usable for coding

    Comment on Hacker News. jmaker, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Sonnet 5 for coding on Claude Max.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5 is definitely better than Sonnet 4.6, but inferior on both quality and cost to GLM 5.1, GLM 5.2, Gemini 3.1 Flash, and Gemini 3.1 Pro

    Comment on Hacker News. artursapek, Hacker News commenter who runs a proofreading benchmark, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Sonnet 5 on the commenter's errata-bench proofreading benchmark.

  • Favorable
    For writing and building code, Sonnet 5 is the most capable model we've worked with at this tier

    Claude Sonnet 5 Review: Coding, Reviews & Cost. Juan Pablo Flores and Gowtham Kishore Vijay, CodeRabbit, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 in CodeRabbit's review harness and on build work, effort settings from off to high.

  • Favorable
    It is about as reliable as Sonnet 5 for agentic coding.

    Comment on Hacker News. bitexploder, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Sonnet 5 for agentic coding, against local Qwen Flash Next.

  • Unfavorable
    it just happily contradicts itself halfway through the sentence

    Comment on Hacker News. rich_sasha, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 27, 2026. Sonnet 5 at default settings.

  • Unfavorable
    Here's the pelican . It's nothing to write home about.

    What's new in Claude Sonnet 5. Simon Willison, Simon Willison's Weblog, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 on launch day, its tokenizer measured with the author's token counter.

Tool use and structured output 70%

  • Unfavorable
    When using anthropic through litellm to AWS bedrock, tool calling errors

    When using anthropic through litellm to AWS bedrock, tool calling errors. icsy7867, GitHub user of an Open WebUI Anthropic pipe, self-described, Jul 30, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 on Bedrock through LiteLLM and Open WebUI.

  • Favorable
    returns the typed response on us. Opus 5, Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5

    fix(aws): restore structured output for Claude 5 on Bedrock. JonZeolla, GitHub contributor to langchain-aws, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 on Bedrock through Converse with a JSON schema, us., global., eu. and au. profiles.

  • Favorable
    It also recovered independently from bad instructions that led to an uninformative 400 error by using its schema-fetching tool

    Comment on Hacker News. boutell, Hacker News commenter building the ApostropheCMS editing agent, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Sonnet 5 powering an editing agent in ApostropheCMS, early tests.

  • Unfavorable
    spinning up subagents is the only thing it's good at and it does it way too much

    Comment on Hacker News. vikramkr, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 24, 2026. Sonnet 5 in Claude Code.

  • Favorable
    uses tools and triggers skills appropriately

    Comment on Hacker News. 8note, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 1, 2026. Sonnet 5 in agentic coding.

  • Favorable
    sonnet 5 knew to look it up in nitter and xcancel to get the tweet and its context automatically

    Comment on Hacker News. yonran, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 25, 2026. Sonnet 5 in claude.ai with web tools.

  • Favorable
    Hook it up to IDA, or I use Ghidra, with MCP and it can autonomously search for whatever you tell it to using a text prompt

    Comment on Hacker News. aetherspawn, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 1, 2026. Sonnet 5 driving IDA or Ghidra over MCP for reverse engineering.

  • Favorable
    It was able to drive Claude Code's integrated browser to measure the impact of changes

    Comment on Hacker News. onion2k, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 2, 2026. Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 in Claude Code converting a game from three.js to ogl.js.

  • Favorable
    It's a great fit for agent loops

    Claude Sonnet 5 Review: Coding, Reviews & Cost. Juan Pablo Flores and Gowtham Kishore Vijay, CodeRabbit, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 in CodeRabbit's review harness and on build work, effort settings from off to high.

  • Unfavorable
    #18199 showed Bedrock rejecting `strict` for `claude-sonnet-5` with `tools.0.custom.strict: Extra inputs are not permitted`

    @ai-sdk/amazon-bedrock: Claude 5 models can't use strict tools or native structured output, which Bedrock now supports. rhamnett, GitHub user filing a Vercel AI SDK issue, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. anthropic.claude-sonnet-5 on Amazon Bedrock through @ai-sdk/amazon-bedrock.

Long context 50%

Developer experience 29%

  • Unfavorable
    it generated 370M tokens, which is very verbose in comparison to the median of 87M

    Claude Sonnet 5 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 at max effort on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5 is not currently available in the EU region on Bedrock, whereas previous models were and still are

    Comment on Hacker News. Cu3PO42, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 on Bedrock in the EU.

  • Favorable
    it's about ~20% less verbose than GLM 5.2 in average code submission sizes

    Comment on Hacker News. gertlabs, Hacker News account of the Gert Labs model rankings, self-described, Jul 1, 2026. Sonnet 5 in Gert Labs coding evaluations, one-shot and agentic.

  • Unfavorable
    it took 20 for sonnet-5 and sonnet-5 kept bugging me

    Comment on Hacker News. 0x457, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 21, 2026. sonnet-5 adding a feature to the commenter's MCP server, against local Qwen 3.8-27B.

  • Unfavorable
    Opus and Sonnet 5 made serious regressions in how they speak to the user

    Comment on Hacker News. accrual, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 14, 2026. Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 for quick one-shot work.

  • Unfavorable
    Opus and Sonnet 5 babble like crazy

    Comment on Hacker News. larodi, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 24, 2026. Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 in conversation.

  • Unfavorable
    In a free sub, I would never get an answer back even for very simple prompts. It would just churn on nothing and return max token usage reached.

    Comment on Hacker News. codingisfreedom, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Sonnet 5 at max effort on a free Claude subscription.

  • Favorable
    This is the feature that protects your budget.

    Claude Sonnet 5 Review: Coding, Reviews & Cost. Juan Pablo Flores and Gowtham Kishore Vijay, CodeRabbit, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 in CodeRabbit's review harness and on build work, effort settings from off to high.

Cost 39%

  • Favorable
    reasonably priced when comparing to other models of similar price

    Claude Sonnet 5 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 at max effort on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.

  • Favorable
    it's a solid release that gives Anthropic some standing in the price-conscious inference market

    Comment on Hacker News. gertlabs, Hacker News account of the Gert Labs model rankings, self-described, Jul 1, 2026. Sonnet 5 in Gert Labs coding evaluations, one-shot and agentic.

  • Unfavorable
    stupidly expensive if you accidentally set reasoning tokens high - more expensive than fable

    Comment on Hacker News. vikramkr, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 24, 2026. Sonnet 5 in Claude Code.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5 is arguably the most cost ineffective model to ever be released

    Comment on Hacker News. onlyrealcuzzo, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 13, 2026. Sonnet 5 against Fable and Gemini 3.7 Flash.

  • Favorable
    According to the data, Sonnet 5 is about 2-3 times cheaper

    Comment on Hacker News. ianberdin (Ruslan Ianberdin), Founder & CEO of Playcode, Jul 13, 2026. Sonnet 5 as a default model in playcode.io, against Opus 4.8, Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6.

  • Unfavorable
    There is basically no reason to ever use Sonnet 5, the competitors are significantly cheaper

    Comment on Hacker News. tristanj, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 21, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 cost per task on Artificial Analysis.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5 is a huge token hog, though, it uses far more reasoning tokens than Opus models

    Comment on Hacker News. Tiberium, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 8, 2026. Sonnet 5 at promotional and standard pricing.

  • Unfavorable
    I tried Sonnet 5 and burned the entire 5h quota on a single deep research run

    Comment on Hacker News. runnig, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 1, 2026. Sonnet 5 on a deep research run in a Claude subscription.

  • Favorable
    while costing a lot less than Fable

    Comment on Hacker News. plqbfbv, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 24, 2026. Sonnet 5 at medium effort as a daily driver.

  • Favorable
    Claude Pro with Sonnet 5 at $20 per month for a limit I never reach is OK

    Comment on Hacker News. pmontra, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 6, 2026. Sonnet 5 on Claude Pro, three days a week full time.

  • Favorable
    so far it looks like it's using fewer tokens for similar tasks

    Comment on Hacker News. noduerme, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Sonnet 5 in an OpenClaw setup, replacing Sonnet 4.6.

  • Unfavorable
    $400 burned by Sonnet 5 on a single incident

    Comment on Hacker News. bilalq, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. Sonnet 5 in Claude Tag on an incident channel.

  • Favorable
    A Claude 20x sub running Sonnet 5/Opus 5 and light Fable usage gets me through the month

    Comment on Hacker News. halfmatthalfcat, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 18, 2026. Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 on a Claude 20x subscription.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5 was terrible API value for agentic coding

    Comment on Hacker News. bigyabai, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Sonnet 5 through the API for agentic coding.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5 worked longer and read more to get there, consuming 1.9x more tokens

    Comment on Hacker News. cpard, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 9, 2026. Sonnet 5 on a Databricks multi-step data engineering benchmark.

  • Favorable
    Gpt 5.5 and sonnet 5 cost same amount of money as GLM 5.2 but are more capable models

    Comment on Hacker News. maxdo, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 2, 2026. Sonnet 5 on CursorBench 3.1.

  • Unfavorable
    comes at a slightly higher cost per review

    Claude Sonnet 5 Review: Coding, Reviews & Cost. Juan Pablo Flores and Gowtham Kishore Vijay, CodeRabbit, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 in CodeRabbit's review harness and on build work, effort settings from off to high.

  • Unfavorable
    As a result, the actual cost went up by 50%

    Comment on Hacker News. ianberdin (Ruslan Ianberdin), Founder & CEO of Playcode, Jun 30, 2026. Sonnet 5 on coding work at playcode.io, launch week.

  • Unfavorable
    So the new token is roughly 1.4x times more expensive for English

    What's new in Claude Sonnet 5. Simon Willison, Simon Willison's Weblog, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 on launch day, its tokenizer measured with the author's token counter.

Speed 44%

  • Favorable
    At 84 tokens per second, Claude Sonnet 5 (Max) is faster than average

    Claude Sonnet 5 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 at max effort on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.

  • Favorable
    The same request sent directly to Bedrock (bypassing LiteLLM entirely) is fast on every run.

    [Bug]: Intermittent ~16.7s time-to-first-byte (TTFB) on streaming Anthropic /v1/messages requests, not reproducible against Bedrock directly. nuernber, GitHub user filing a LiteLLM bug, self-described, Aug 28, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-sonnet-5 on Bedrock with adaptive thinking at effort max, streaming.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5 ends up being 40% more expensive and ~2x faster than GLM 5.2 in our evaluations

    Comment on Hacker News. gertlabs, Hacker News account of the Gert Labs model rankings, self-described, Jul 1, 2026. Sonnet 5 in Gert Labs coding evaluations, one-shot and agentic.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5 today was incredibly slow for example

    Comment on Hacker News. c0rruptbytes, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 1, 2026. Sonnet 5 on launch day.

  • Unfavorable
    Opus 5 on low is faster, cheaper, and better than Sonnet 5 on high

    Comment on Hacker News. datadrivenangel, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 24, 2026. Sonnet 5 at high effort, against Opus 5 at low effort.

  • Unfavorable
    Opus 4.8 on Low is similar in price and quality to Sonnet 5 on High, but much faster

    Comment on Hacker News. drdexebtjl, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 18, 2026. Sonnet 5 at high effort, against Opus 4.8 at low effort.

  • Unfavorable
    It'll spend 30 minutes thinking and charge like $12.

    Comment on Hacker News. apatheticonion, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 8, 2026. Sonnet 5 at an Anthropic shop, in-IDE and headless agent workflows.

  • Favorable
    For quick one-shot type work I don't mind using Opus/Sonnet 5. They're good and fast

    Comment on Hacker News. accrual, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 14, 2026. Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 for quick one-shot work.

  • Favorable
    I want speed. I toggle between sonnet 5 low/med which is plenty good for my workflow

    Comment on Hacker News. qudat, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Sonnet 5 at low and medium effort.

  • Unfavorable
    We found Sonnet 5 to be slower than Sonnet 4.6

    Claude Sonnet 5 Review: Coding, Reviews & Cost. Juan Pablo Flores and Gowtham Kishore Vijay, CodeRabbit, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 in CodeRabbit's review harness and on build work, effort settings from off to high.

Reliability 63%

  • Favorable
    Bedrock direct is fast and stable on every run (stdev 0.15s)

    [Bug]: Intermittent ~16.7s time-to-first-byte (TTFB) on streaming Anthropic /v1/messages requests, not reproducible against Bedrock directly. nuernber, GitHub user filing a LiteLLM bug, self-described, Aug 28, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-sonnet-5 on Bedrock with adaptive thinking at effort max, streaming.

  • Favorable
    It also recovered independently from bad instructions that led to an uninformative 400 error

    Comment on Hacker News. boutell, Hacker News commenter building the ApostropheCMS editing agent, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Sonnet 5 powering an editing agent in ApostropheCMS, early tests.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5 was fantastic. It's slow and dumber now.

    Comment on Hacker News. gigatexal, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Sonnet 5 at work, six weeks after release.

  • Favorable
    it can run continuously

    Comment on Hacker News. aetherspawn, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 1, 2026. Sonnet 5 driving IDA or Ghidra over MCP for reverse engineering.

  • Unfavorable
    claude-sonnet-5[1m] is temporarily unavailable (overloaded)

    Comment on Hacker News. scottydelta, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 3, 2026. Sonnet 5 (claude-sonnet-5[1m]) as the Claude Code auto mode classifier during the September 3 outage.

  • Favorable
    The model was still going, working through the problem on its own, with no nudging from us.

    Claude Sonnet 5 Review: Coding, Reviews & Cost. Juan Pablo Flores and Gowtham Kishore Vijay, CodeRabbit, self-described, Jun 30, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5 in CodeRabbit's review harness and on build work, effort settings from off to high.

  • Favorable
    It is about as reliable as Sonnet 5 for agentic coding.

    Comment on Hacker News. bitexploder, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Sonnet 5 for agentic coding, against local Qwen Flash Next.

  • Unfavorable
    sonnet 5 these days I think has gotten worse

    Comment on Hacker News. gigatexal, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 12, 2026. Sonnet 5 at work, six weeks after release.