Skip to main content

Claude Sonnet model by Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 5.5

A Claude Sonnet release for everyday agentic, coding, and knowledge 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.This model
  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
Stack role
Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine
Offered in
9 products
Made by
Anthropic
Family
Claude Sonnet, version 5.5
Released
Sep 28, 2026 Current
In its family
The newest of 4 Claude Sonnet releases.

Strengths and weaknesses

Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Claude Sonnet 5.5

  • Claude Sonnet 5.5

Suggested comparisons

The models a buyer weighs against Claude Sonnet 5.5, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Claude Sonnet 5.5.

Claude Sonnet 5.5AnthropicThis page, always on the chart

Among the 40 current releases on this chart, Claude Sonnet 5.5 ranks second of 31 on Agentic coding, 4th of 38 on Hard reasoning and 4th of 38 on Tool use. On Computer use, Anthropic's own figures on OSWorld 2.1 put Claude Sonnet 5.5 23.1 points above Claude Sonnet 5. Multimodal and Instruction following: not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026.

Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero. 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 5.5This pageResults on 10 of 12 axes$2 / $10140 tokens/sFirst token in 455 s

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

Claude Sonnet 5.5 on each axis10 of 12 with a result

Beside the benchmarks

Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Claude Sonnet 5.5, with where each figure sits among the 40 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.

Cost

$5.46per task

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

Cached input
$0.10 per 1M tokens

Speed

141tokens a second

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

First token
427 s
Whole answer
431 s

Capacity

1Mtokens

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

Max output
128K
Reads
Text, Images

Quality

56.0of 100

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

GDPval knowledge work
1,838 Elo
Terminal-Bench 4.0
63.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index
166

Hallucination

43.3%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
51.5%

Where you can get it

15of 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, OpenRouter, Epoch AI and GILD's route matrix, read Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under .

Every value with its benchmark, run and source

Claude Sonnet 5.5's result on each axis, with the benchmark, the setting and run, who reported it, the source and the date
AxisBenchmark and settingClaude Sonnet 5.5RunSourceDate
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness64.1%Claude Sonnet 5.5Effort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent.Vals.aiOct 24, 2026
CodeSciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run. Artificial Analysis tested Sonnet 5.5 as Anthropic serves it by default, with its safeguard fallback model on.61%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Effort: max. Harness: none.Run as Anthropic serves it by default: requests its safeguards stop are answered by a fallback model.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run88.8%Effort: max. Harness: none.Epoch AISep 28, 2026
ScienceGPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run95.6%Effort: max. Harness: none.Epoch AISep 28, 2026
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools. Artificial Analysis tested Sonnet 5.5 as Anthropic serves it by default, with its safeguard fallback model on.55%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Effort: max. Harness: none.Run as Anthropic serves it by default: requests its safeguards stop are answered by a fallback model.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Tool useAutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run. Artificial Analysis tested Sonnet 5.5 as Anthropic serves it by default, with its safeguard fallback model on.71.8%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Effort: max. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness.Run as Anthropic serves it by default: requests its safeguards stop are answered by a fallback model.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Computer useOSWorld 2.1Partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release. Anthropic's own run at max effort in its computer-use harness, averaged over five runs. It fully completed 43.5% of the tasks.80.1%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max)Effort: max. Harness: Anthropic computer-use harness.Not drawn: Anthropic 83.9% in its maker's own harness, Oct 7, 2026. SourceNot drawn: OpenAI 83.9% in another lab's harness, Oct 26, 2026. SourceAnthropicReported by AnthropicSep 28, 2026
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run. Artificial Analysis tested Sonnet 5.5 as Anthropic serves it by default, with its safeguard fallback model on.82.7%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Effort: max. Harness: none.Run as Anthropic serves it by default: requests its safeguards stop are answered by a fallback model.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MultimodalMMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no toolsNot yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
FactualityAA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run. Artificial Analysis tested Sonnet 5.5 as Anthropic serves it by default, with its safeguard fallback model on.51.5%Hallucination rate 43.3% in the same run (lower is better)Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Effort: max. Harness: none.Run as Anthropic serves it by default: requests its safeguards stop are answered by a fallback model.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Answers in fullSpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. SpeechMap tested it through OpenRouter at medium thinking and counted 13.5% of requests denied and 4.6% evaded.81.6%0.3% of requests failed at the provider and count against itEffort: medium. Harness: none.SpeechMap.AIOct 27, 2026
Instruction followingMultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI runNot yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026

Price and speed

  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 lists at $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens. Anthropic pricing, Oct 26, 2026.
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5, at max effort, writes 140.1 output tokens per second on Anthropic's API, and its first token arrives 455 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 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 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 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 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 Sonnet 5.582.7%
  17. Claude Haiku 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 5.5 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 5.5: the value, the run it comes from, the publisher and the day it was read
MeasureClaude Sonnet 5.5RunSourceRead
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
Max outputThe most tokens the model writes in one response.128Kno Anthropic figure in the stored maker sources; OpenRouter lists 128,000OpenRouterOct 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.15 of 19GILD route matrixOct 28, 2026
Cost
Answer tokens per taskLower is better. Answer tokens per Intelligence Index task, reasoning excluded.50,797Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$2.21Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$1.23Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$3.49Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$1.97Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$1.47Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)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.$5.46Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)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.$7,260Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is.197,430Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task.146,633Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Cached inputLower is better. The maker's list price for input read from its prompt cache, per million tokens.$0.1AnthropicOct 30, 2026
Speed
End-to-end time, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds for a whole response with a 100,000-token prompt.341 sClaude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt.431 sClaude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Time to first answer token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first answer token with a 100,000-token prompt.338 sClaude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)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.427 sClaude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Output speed, 100K promptMedian output tokens per second when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long.135 tokens/sClaude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)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.141 tokens/sClaude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)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.902 sClaude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Time to first token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first chunk when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long: long-input latency, separate from window size.338 sClaude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)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.427 sClaude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)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.43.3%Max effortArtificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly.51.5%Max effortArtificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100.32.3Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)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.46.5%Max effortEpoch AISep 29, 2026
Knowledge work
AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval.1,816Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
AnalystAgent (AA run)AA's AnalystAgent score for analyst workflows.57.5%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
APEX-Agents (maintainers)APEX-Agents pass@1 from the maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it.75.5%Max effortMercor (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes.25.8%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval.1,838Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
MLCR (AA run)AA's MLCR overall score for long, multi-document reading.41.7%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)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.$11,165Andon Labs (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Capability beyond the chart
AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy.82.7%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,819High effortSakana AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.59%Max effortEpoch AIOct 13, 2026
CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run.31.4%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
CursorBenchCursorBench score from Cursor, as Epoch AI republishes it.55.5%Max effortCursor (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it.97.3%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.166Claude Sonnet 5.5Epoch AIOct 26, 2026
FrontierCode (AA run)AA's FrontierCode score: hard, unsaturated coding tasks.45.8%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tier 4 research math problems solved, Epoch AI's run.80.5%Max effortEpoch AISep 29, 2026
FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 problems solved, Epoch AI's run.88.8%Max effortEpoch AISep 29, 2026
FrontierSWEFrontierSWE score, as Epoch AI republishes it.61.9%Max effortFrontierSWE (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run.95.6%Max effortEpoch AISep 29, 2026
Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run.55.0%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points.56Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)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.68.3Max effortRedwood Research (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.65%Max effortEpoch AISep 29, 2026
OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch)Share of OTIS Mock AIME 2024 to 2025 problems solved, Epoch AI's run.100%Max effortEpoch AISep 29, 2026
ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it.100%Max effortVals AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run.61.0%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness.63.6%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Terminal-Bench Science (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench Science tasks solved in AA's harness.53.3%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
WebDev ArenaWebDev Arena score from human pairwise votes on web builds, with its 95% interval, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,786Extra-high effortLMArena (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
WeirdML v3, best runWeirdML v3 maximum performance across runs, as Epoch AI republishes it.37.0%Extra-high effortHåvard Tveit Ihle (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Domains
EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points.60.8Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points.58.4Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points.57.2Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Healthcare and medicalArtificial Analysis capability score for healthcare and medical questions, 0 to 100 points.53.1Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points.56.4Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points.59.6Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026
Harvey Legal Lab (AA run)AA's run of Harvey's legal task lab.2.8%Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Artificial AnalysisOct 26, 2026

Routes, prices and uptime

Where Claude Sonnet 5.5 is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.

Where it is offered

15 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer Claude Sonnet 5.5 today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.

RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
Amazon BedrockAvailableanthropic.claude-sonnet-5-5us./eu./au./global. profiles; Active, EOL not sooner than Sept 28, 2027; tiers: Standard only (Batch, Priority, Flex, Reserved not supported); context / output 1M / 128KAmazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Claude Sonnet 5.5
AntigravityAvailablenot statedpicker label Claude Sonnet 5.5 (thinking) **Antigravity: available on paid Google AI Pro, Ultra, Enterprise; Gemini CLI serves Gemini models onlyGoogle
Claude CodeAvailableclaude-sonnet-5-5By full model name on the Anthropic API, or provider ARN, version or deployment name; aliases resolve per providerAnthropic
Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)Availableclaude-sonnet-5-5Claude API model IDs (dated IDs use a hyphen)Anthropic, Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic, Claude Models on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)
Claude Platform on AWSAvailableclaude-sonnet-5-5Same ID as the Claude APIAnthropic
CursorAvailablenot statedpicker label Claude Sonnet 5.5available; Premium plan or higher, API list priceAnysphere (Cursor)Cursor, Cursor Docs — Agent, Rules, MCP, Skills & CLICursor, Models & Pricing
DatabricksAvailabledatabricks-claude-sonnet-5-5availableDatabricks, Databricks-hosted inferenceDatabricks, Detailed list of models supported by Databricks Foundation Model APIs
The maker's own APIAvailableclaude-sonnet-5-5context / max output 1M / 128K; status per deprecations tableAnthropic, Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic, Model deprecations
GitHub CopilotAvailablenot statedpicker label Claude Sonnet 5.5available (GA)GitHub
GitHub ModelsRetirednot applicableservice retiredservice retired July 30, 2026GitHub, GitHub Models
Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed)Availableclaude-sonnet-5-5 (GA)retirement not stated on page; input / output 1,000,000 / 128,000Google, Anthropic's Claude on Google Cloud modelsGoogle, Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 5.5 on Google CloudAnthropic
Microsoft FoundryAvailableSources disagreeclaude-sonnet-5-5Deployment types conflict: Anthropic says Global Standard only; Microsoft lists version 2 in US Data Zone Standard regionsAnthropicMicrosoft Learn
OpenCodeAvailableclaude-sonnet-5-5OpenCode Zen gateway, Anthropic Messages endpointAnomaly (OpenCode), ModelsOpenCode (Anomaly)
OpenRouterAvailableanthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5context / max completion 1,000,000 / 128,000OpenRouter
Snowflake CortexPreviewclaude-sonnet-5-5Regions: Cross Cloud (Any Region); AWS US (Cross-Region); AWS EU (Cross-Region); AWS AU (Cross-Region). Per-model context/output not stated in token table. Model overview labels this Public Preview even where the regional table uses a plain availability check.Snowflake
Windsurf / DevinAvailableclaude-sonnet-5-5-highclaude-sonnet-5-5-lowclaude-sonnet-5-5-maxclaude-sonnet-5-5-mediumclaude-sonnet-5-5-xhighavailableCognition (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 $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. OpenRouter's endpoints follow under one heading, each with its monitor's uptime over 1 day and 30 minutes and the context and output it serves.

RouteStandard, in / outCache readOther ratesSource, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits
Claude APIMakerLowest$2 / $10$0.1Cache write $4, 1-hour cacheCache write $2.50, 5-minute cacheAnthropic, Oct 26, 2026Anthropic, Oct 30, 2026
Artificial Analysis price record$2 / $10$0.1Blended $4, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $1.47, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 outputCache write $2.50Artificial Analysis, Oct 26, 2026
OpenRouter$2 / $10$0.1Cache write $4, 1-hour cacheCache write $2.50, 5-minute cacheOpenRouter, Oct 28, 2026
Through OpenRouter, 8 provider endpoints. OpenRouter, Oct 28, 2026
Amazon Bedrock$2 / $10$0.1Cache write $4, 1-hour cacheCache write $2.50, 5-minute cacheUp 100% / 100%1M context, 128K output
Anthropic$2 / $10$0.1Cache write $4, 1-hour cacheCache write $2.50, 5-minute cacheUp 100% / 100%1M context, 128K output
Azure (global)$2 / $10$0.1Cache write $4, 1-hour cacheCache write $2.50, 5-minute cacheUp 100% / 100%1M context, 128K output
Claude Platform on AWS$2 / $10$0.1Cache write $4, 1-hour cacheCache write $2.50, 5-minute cacheUp 100% / 100%1M context, 128K output
Google (global)$2 / $10$0.1Cache write $4, 1-hour cacheCache write $2.50, 5-minute cacheUp 100% / 100%1M context, 128K output
Azure (us)$2.20 / $11$0.11Cache write $4.40, 1-hour cacheCache write $2.75, 5-minute cacheUp 100%1M context, 128K output
Google (europe)$2.20 / $11$0.11Cache write $4.40, 1-hour cacheCache write $2.75, 5-minute cacheUp 100% / 100%1M context, 128K output
Google (us)$2.20 / $11$0.11Cache write $4.40, 1-hour cacheCache write $2.75, 5-minute cacheUp 100% / 100%1M context, 128K output

Uptime and speed by endpoint

Each provider endpoint as its monitor reports it: uptime over the last day and the last 30 minutes, output speed and time to first token, and the limits it serves. A blank is a figure the monitor does not publish for that endpoint.

EndpointUptime, 1 dayUptime, 30 minOutput speedFirst tokenContext / max outputSource
Artificial Analysis: Amazon Bedrock140 tokens/s426 sArtificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026
Artificial Analysis: Anthropic140 tokens/s455 sArtificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026
Artificial Analysis: Google141 tokens/s496 sArtificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026
Artificial Analysis: Microsoft Azure131 tokens/s409 sArtificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026
Status page: Claude API (api.anthropic.com)99.7%, Calendar month: August 2026; component: Claude API (api.anthropic.com)Anthropic, Oct 28, 2026
Status page: Claude API (api.anthropic.com)99.7%, Calendar month: September 2026; component: Claude API (api.anthropic.com)Anthropic, Oct 28, 2026
Status page: Claude API (api.anthropic.com)99.8%, Calendar month: October 2026; component: Claude API (api.anthropic.com)Anthropic, Oct 28, 2026

Lineup

Anthropic's 14 releases in 4 families, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. Claude Sonnet 5.5 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. 5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$2 / $10Speed85.8 tok/s
    4. This page5.5Current. 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

Where it fits

The layers of Agentic Software Development that Claude Sonnet 5.5 can power. A product supplies the rest.

Product & Engineering, Software Development

Agentic Software Development

Primary role
Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine

Claude Sonnet 5.5 can power coding, reasoning, and validation work inside an agentic software-development product. The Model does not itself provide the surrounding interface, execution environment, or system of record.

  1. Work planning & task decomposition

    The Model can assist with work planning & task decomposition when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  2. Codebase context & intelligence

    The provider documents long-context or codebase-oriented reasoning suitable for this layer. Anthropic's page

    Strong fit

  3. Coding & implementation

    The provider documents this Model for software-engineering and coding work. Anthropic's page

    Strong fit

  4. Debugging & investigation

    The Model can assist with debugging & investigation when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  5. Testing & verification

    The Model can assist with testing & verification when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  6. Code review & quality

    The Model can assist with code review & quality when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

Products

We cover 9 products that offer Claude Sonnet 5.5 today: 8 subscriptions and 1 API.

Through a subscription

  1. Kiro+10 MixedAWS's spec-driven agent for the IDE, terminal, and cloud.Pro, Pro+, Pro Max, PowerPlans that include it
  2. 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
  3. Claude+44 PositiveAnthropic's general-purpose AI assistant for individuals and teams.AI AssistantSupported
  4. Claude Code+75 Strong positiveAnthropic's agentic coding product for terminal and IDE workflows.Pro, Max, Ultra, Team, EnterprisePlans that include it
  5. Cursor+11 MixedAI coding agent and code editor for writing, reviewing, and shipping software, with agents in the editor, the terminal, and the cloud.Premium, Super, Ultra, Teams, EnterprisePlans that include it
  6. GitHub Copilot+15 MixedGitHub's AI coding agents, IDE assistance, and pull request review.Copilot Pro, Copilot Pro+, Copilot Max, Copilot Business, Copilot EnterprisePlans that include it
  7. Google Antigravity−16 MixedGoogle's agent platform for software work: a desktop manager, a CLI, an IDE, and editor extensions.Google AI Pro, Google AI Ultra, EnterprisePlans that include it
  8. Perplexity−25 NegativeAI answer engine with cited web research, model choice, and an agent for longer tasks.Pro, MaxPlans that include it

Through an API

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

Limits each vendor states

KiroPro, Pro+, Pro Max, Power
Credit cost 1.3x relative to Auto (1.0x baseline); 1M context; regions US, EU
Claude CodePro, Max, Ultra, Team, Enterprise
Through the sonnet alias, which resolves to Sonnet 5.5 on the Anthropic API; these plans default to Opus 5.5.
CursorPremium, Super, Ultra, Teams, Enterprise
Not part of the included pool: on Premium and above, billed at the model's API list price from the first request, paid from prepaid credit (input $2, cache write $2.5, cache read $0.1, output $10 per million tokens); US data residency: Yes. Plus and Free do not include third-party models.
GitHub CopilotCopilot Pro, Copilot Pro+, Copilot Max, Copilot Business, Copilot Enterprise
Included on the Copilot plans listed. Copilot Free and Copilot Student get auto model selection only, so they cannot pick it.
Google AntigravityGoogle AI Pro, Google AI Ultra, Enterprise
Google AI Pro: non-trial subscriptions only. Not available on Free & Google AI Plus
PerplexityPro, Max
In Perplexity's Search model picker on Pro and Max; usage limits apply, with no per-model figures published.

Plan access as each vendor's page states it: Amazon (Oct 28, 2026), Anthropic (Nov 2, 2026), Anysphere (Oct 28, 2026), GitHub (Oct 31, 2026), Google (Oct 26, 2026), Perplexity (Oct 26, 2026).

Comparisons

GILD comparisons that name Claude Sonnet 5.5, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.

What practitioners report

Strongest on Speed, weakest on Reliability.

Each figure is the share of accounts naming Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 5.5 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.64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors
Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track.40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors
Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs.60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors
Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers.38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors
CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save.45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors
SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput.88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors
ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked.18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors
Every model on these seven axes
Share of accounts favorable on each axis for Claude Sonnet 5.5 and every other model GILD has accounts for
AxisClaude Sonnet 5.5Claude Haiku 5.5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Fable 5.1Claude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 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 reasoning64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 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 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 output40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 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 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 context60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 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 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 experience38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 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 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
Cost45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 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 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
Speed88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 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 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
Reliability18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 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 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 79 accounts behind Claude Sonnet 5.5's figures

GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter and the web for accounts that name Claude Sonnet 5.5.

Quality and reasoning 64%

  • Favorable
    sonnet 5 was a LOT worse. 5.5 seems to have fixed it and we cut over our customer workloads

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

  • Favorable
    On our hardest cases it catches half again as many known issues as Sonnet 5 at the same precision

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 for code review: More catches than Sonnet 5, in half the time. Hendrik Krack, author on the CodeRabbit engineering blog, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 in CodeRabbit's review pipeline, thinking on and off, at low, medium and high effort.

  • Unfavorable
    When we ranked every attempt by hand, Gemini 4 Argon, Gemini 3.8 Flash and Claude Opus 5.5 all came out ahead of it.

    Why PartForge now defaults to Claude Sonnet 5.5. Scott Sykora, the developer behind PartForge, Oct 20, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 as PartForge's default CAD chat model, 27 hard tasks with three tries each.

  • Favorable
    Meets leading models on agentic terminal use and knowledge work

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 reaches #2 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 at all five effort levels, max effort for the headline score, with default fallback.

  • Favorable
    It ranks #1 of 27 models on the Vals Index with 70.85%.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 Benchmarks, Cost and Capabilities | Vals AI. Vals AI, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 at max compute effort with Claude Sonnet 5 as server-side fallback.

  • Favorable
    Ranking based on output results: 1- Sonnet 5.5 - High

    X post by @VulKan42069. VulKan42069, X user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 at high effort on a Three.js animation benchmark.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5.5 performed much better in my tests, despite their similar API pricing.

    X post by @debugsenpai. Jigs (debugsenpai), developer of an AI wrapper app, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort against Kimi K3.1 Pro.

  • Favorable
    Both passed every hidden test, 5 of 5

    X post by @CodeTiwg. CodeTwig, X account that runs Claude Code on real tasks and posts the numbers, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 in Claude Code against Kimi K3.1 Pro, a billing-date task run 5 times.

  • Unfavorable
    Tried to wire Claude (sonnet 5.5) to play 1987s police quest using a vibe coded agi interpreter. It did an abysmal job.

    X post by @noufalibrahim. Noufal Ibrahim, CTO/Co-founder of Hamon Technologies, Oct 25, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 driving 1987's Police Quest through an AGI interpreter.

  • Unfavorable
    after hours of nerfed, lobotomized outputs

    X post by @vvcanvaslab. vvcanvaslab, X user building in public, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 during a refactor, then Gemini 4 Argon and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash in OpenCode.

  • Unfavorable
    but they aren't smart enough to complete a task in as few turns as Opus

    X post by @Noah64165746. Noah, software engineer and LSP author, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 as a subagent, against Opus 5.5 and DeepSeek V4.1.

  • Favorable
    24 of 24 fixes passed

    X post by @stas_sorokin_. Stas Sorokin, builder of Tectomight, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. Claude Code on Sonnet 5.5 against Codex on GPT-6 Astra, 3 planted bugs in a 67-file repo.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5.5 vs Sonnet 5 on Bakeoff (real bugs/features, graded by held-out tests) is a huge upgrade

    Comment on: Sonnet 5.5. ariwilson, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 against Sonnet 5 on the commenter's Bakeoff eval of real bugs and features.

  • Unfavorable
    but did have to correct itself more often on the conclusions

    Comment on: Getting the most out of Opus 5.5 in Claude and Claude Code. magicalhippo, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 3, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort on electronics datasheet PDFs, beside Claude 5.5 on high.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5.5 does most aspects of my job better than me and faster than me.

    Comment on: AI is a tool and using it well takes skill. FreePalestine1, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 13, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 on the commenter's own job.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5.5 is also a very nice worker improvement. It is probably on par with Opus 4.6-4.8.

    Comment on: Gemini 4 Argon. bitexploder, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 13, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 as a coding worker beside Opus 5.5.

  • Favorable
    The C and assembly levels succeeded in all 5 attempts.

    Comment on: Claude can write executables in pure bytes, no language or compiler in between. lusob, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 on x86-64 writing C, assembly and raw ELF bytes, 5 runs each.

  • Unfavorable
    Recently, Sonnet 5.5 got quite good, too, but not at the level of Opus/Fable for complex geometry

    Comment on: Ask HN: CAD for wood working with LLM support?. artyom, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 15, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 writing FreeCAD and OpenSCAD code for 3D printing.

  • Unfavorable
    but it was more correct than Sonnet

    Comment on: DeepSeek-v4.1-Flash-1017. johnnyApplePRNG, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 17, 2026. sonnet 5.5 as a Claude Code worker agent on 3 hard questions, against Haiku 5.5 and DeepSeek 1017.

  • Favorable
    Claude Sonnet 5.5 just did it right on the first try.

    Comment on: DeepInfer: High-performance inference framework for DeepSeek models. pmoriarty, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort against DeepSeek 4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash.

  • Unfavorable
    Claude Sonnet 5.5 comes in about 100 kcal low per meal, mostly by underestimating protein.

    Comment on: Can AI Reliably Estimate Macros from Photos?. jangop, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 estimating meal macros from photos.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5.5 is way better than GPT 6 Sol.

    Comment on: Sonnet 5.5. jdw64, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 on the Pro plan against GPT 6 Sol.

  • Favorable
    sonnet 5.5 pulled it off within 20 mins and sideload it to my apple tv via xcode.

    Comment on: What reversing, modernising old games tells us about the economic impact of AI. jnaina, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. sonnet 5.5 porting an old game to Apple TV via Xcode.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5.5 via cloud code provides the highest quality results.

    Comment on: How the Claude Code team does code review. vektormemory, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 16, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 via Claude Code in a harness of 600+ APIs and models.

Tool use and structured output 40%

Long context 60%

  • Favorable
    3 bugs planted in a 67-file repo. Claude Code on Sonnet 5.5

    X post by @stas_sorokin_. Stas Sorokin, builder of Tectomight, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. Claude Code on Sonnet 5.5 against Codex on GPT-6 Astra, 3 planted bugs in a 67-file repo.

  • Favorable
    I did use Sonnet 5.5 Medium on some datasheets and it also did very well on the extraction

    Comment on: Getting the most out of Opus 5.5 in Claude and Claude Code. magicalhippo, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 3, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort on electronics datasheet PDFs, beside Claude 5.5 on high.

  • Unfavorable
    It doesn't work equally well with Sonnet 5.5, interestingly.

    Comment on: Mistral Large 4. Slartie, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 6, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 on multi-microservice agent work filling a 1M context window.

  • Favorable
    I gave it the llama cpp repo and told it to extract in a single file inference

    Comment on: From the creator of Redis; run LLM locally with ds4. aziis98, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 2, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 given the llama.cpp repository to extract a single-file inference program.

  • Unfavorable
    It happens in long, tool-heavy sessions.

    Opus 5.5 / Sonnet 5.5 drift into English mid-session despite German user input. Computerhof, Claude Code user (GitHub issue author), self-described, Oct 5, 2026. Opus 5.5 and Sonnet 5.5 in Claude Code desktop sessions with German input.

Developer experience 38%

Cost 45%

  • Favorable
    On both benchmarks, Sonnet 5.5's Claude calls cost about 40% of Sonnet 5's for the same reviews, a saving of roughly 60% per review.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 for code review: More catches than Sonnet 5, in half the time. Hendrik Krack, author on the CodeRabbit engineering blog, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 in CodeRabbit's review pipeline, thinking on and off, at low, medium and high effort.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5.5 was also about a third cheaper than Flash

    Why PartForge now defaults to Claude Sonnet 5.5. Scott Sykora, the developer behind PartForge, Oct 20, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 as PartForge's default CAD chat model, 27 hard tasks with three tries each.

  • Unfavorable
    At this pricing Claude Sonnet 5.5 sits off the Intelligence vs. Cost per Task Pareto Frontier

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 reaches #2 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 at all five effort levels, max effort for the headline score, with default fallback.

  • Favorable
    0.47 points behind Claude Opus 5.5 (69.69%) at under two-thirds of its $32.77 per test

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 Benchmarks, Cost and Capabilities | Vals AI. Vals AI, independent benchmark publisher, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 at max compute effort with Claude Sonnet 5 as server-side fallback.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5.5 is THE MOST token-hungry model out there.

    Claude 5.5 is brilliant, confusing, and very hungry. andrea saez, author of the Drea Says Product Things newsletter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 across effort levels, from launch threads and independent benchmarks.

  • Favorable
    Kimi cost $0.127 a run vs $0.054

    X post by @CodeTiwg. CodeTwig, X account that runs Claude Code on real tasks and posts the numbers, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 in Claude Code against Kimi K3.1 Pro, a billing-date task run 5 times.

  • Favorable
    Claude Opus 5.5 vs Sonnet 5.5 on one prompt: $7.60 vs $4.65 at est. API list price.

    X post by @jeffbruchado. Jeff Bruchado, software engineer building products with AI, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 at high effort with Read, Write and Edit tools, against Opus 5.5.

  • Unfavorable
    The cost is not close, so Deepseek won based on cost

    X post by @Noah64165746. Noah, software engineer and LSP author, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 as a subagent, against Opus 5.5 and DeepSeek V4.1.

  • Unfavorable
    token-hungry demons like Sonnet 5.5 Max

    X post by @saintcynosure. charles (saintcynosure), ML grad student, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 at max effort on the Artificial Analysis index.

  • Favorable
    sonnet 5.5 way better value for money

    X post by @HtxYasi. HtxYasi, X user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 against another model's API costs.

  • Unfavorable
    Why would you use Sonnet 5.5 on xhigh if you would get better results (higher score, cheaper cost) on Opus 5.5 high?

    Comment on: Sonnet 5.5. benjiro29, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 at xhigh against Opus 5.5 at high, from the launch cost chart.

  • Unfavorable
    If Sonnet 5.5 were half its current price it would make sense to use.

    Comment on: Sonnet 5.5. mchusma, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 at list price, for applications and subscriptions.

  • Favorable
    4x cheaper due to using fewer tokens

    Comment on: Sonnet 5.5. ariwilson, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 against Sonnet 5 on the commenter's Bakeoff eval of real bugs and features.

  • Unfavorable
    I tested this model, it's ok, but too pricy. It's luna level, but 14x more expensive

    Comment on: Sonnet 5.5. XCSme, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 at high effort on the commenter's aibenchy tests.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5.5 on low is leagues ahead of deepseek v4.1 flash in price per

    Comment on: GPT 6.1 Sol: Near-Astra intelligence for a fifth of the price. some-guy, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 30, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 at low effort against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash.

  • Unfavorable
    but cost much more (both because per token prices are higher and because total token counts are higher)

    Comment on: Anthropic Subscriptions Offer 5x+ More Value Than OpenAI. _aavaa_, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 5, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 on the Artificial Analysis suite against Opus 5.5 and Sol 6.1.

  • Favorable
    GLM 5.3 was more expensive than Haiku and Sonnet 5.5 on a workload I was testing recently despite being much cheaper on the price sheet.

    Comment on: Token-maxxing is dead, OpenRouter's token usage plateaus. alphabettsy, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 on the commenter's workload against GLM 5.3.

  • Unfavorable
    Kimi K3.1 Pro ties Sonnet 5.5 at 93, for $0.68 and 11 min vs Sonnet's $1.61 and 14 min.

    Comment on: Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. thefourthchime, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 on the Pac-Man bakeoff against Kimi K3.1 Pro.

  • Favorable
    the $20 anthropic sub will get you like $200-$300 in sonnet 5.5

    Comment on: Anthropic S-1. criley2, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort at home, from Artificial Analysis cost per task.

  • Favorable
    Never had to buy more deepseek tokens for months (August), because Sonnet 5.5 is good enough

    Comment on: DeepSeek just open-sourced its inference engine. rurban, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 on a cheap Claude subscription against DeepSeek API tokens.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5.5 is 16x more expensive at $10 per million output tokens.

    Comment on: OpenAI and Anthropic cut their LLM prices by up to 80% within a few months. Why?. 332451b, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 output price against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash.

  • Unfavorable
    Sonnet 5.5 made zero sense to use over Opus 5.5 under the old cache prices.

    Comment on: Claude Haiku 5.5. minimaxir, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 against Opus 5.5 under the earlier cache prices.

  • Unfavorable
    the token costs on Kiro don't reflect any kind of savings for using the new model

    Cost basis for Sonnet 5.5. westlakem, Kiro user (GitHub issue author), self-described, Oct 6, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 hardcoded in Kiro IDE and CLI.

  • Unfavorable
    `/compact` misses the cached conversation and re-sends the whole history as a cache write

    [BUG] /compact misses the warm prompt cache on Opus 5.5 / Sonnet 5.5 and re-sends the whole conversation (fixed by CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_EXPERIMENTAL_BETAS; Opus 5 unaffected). DragonQLF, Claude Code user (GitHub issue author), self-described, Oct 5, 2026. Opus 5.5 and Sonnet 5.5 in Claude Code 2.1.289 running /compact.

Speed 88%

  • Favorable
    Full answer in 7.0 seconds... Opus 5.5 takes 30.0 and GPT-6 Astra 16.7

    Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort for chat apps. Gabriele Bolognese, backend developer and founder of FlashFX, self-described, Oct 2, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort through the API, against Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra.

  • Favorable
    Across 44 reviews, Sonnet 5.5 averaged 6:33 per review against 13:31 for Sonnet 5

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 for code review: More catches than Sonnet 5, in half the time. Hendrik Krack, author on the CodeRabbit engineering blog, self-described, Sep 28, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 in CodeRabbit's review pipeline, thinking on and off, at low, medium and high effort.

  • Favorable
    Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the fastest model we've tested on hard tasks.

    Why PartForge now defaults to Claude Sonnet 5.5. Scott Sykora, the developer behind PartForge, Oct 20, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 as PartForge's default CAD chat model, 27 hard tasks with three tries each.

  • Favorable
    At 141 tokens per second, Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) is notably fast

    Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max with fallback) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) on the Artificial Analysis model page.

  • Favorable
    Kimi cost $0.127 a run vs $0.054 and took 148s vs 18s

    X post by @CodeTiwg. CodeTwig, X account that runs Claude Code on real tasks and posts the numbers, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 in Claude Code against Kimi K3.1 Pro, a billing-date task run 5 times.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5.5 and Deepseek-v4.1 deliver far more tokens per second

    X post by @Noah64165746. Noah, software engineer and LSP author, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 as a subagent, against Opus 5.5 and DeepSeek V4.1.

  • Favorable
    Claude Code with no notes fixed bugs 2.4x faster than Codex holding a handoff note.

    X post by @stas_sorokin_. Stas Sorokin, builder of Tectomight, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. Claude Code on Sonnet 5.5 against Codex on GPT-6 Astra, 3 planted bugs in a 67-file repo.

  • Favorable
    So far it feels fast and efficient, and noticeably different from Sonnet 5.

    Comment on: Sonnet 5.5. vinhnx, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 through Merge Gateway.

  • Favorable
    is a huge upgrade: * 5.5x faster

    Comment on: Sonnet 5.5. ariwilson, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 against Sonnet 5 on the commenter's Bakeoff eval of real bugs and features.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5.5 is around 140 tokens/s when I had measured it last time.

    Comment on: Run Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (125B) on consumer hardware (RTX 4090) at 100T/s. martianvoid, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 5, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 on a $20 Claude subscription.

  • Favorable
    since the Sonnet 5.5 and recent Opus speed increases, I'm putting that on hold

    Comment on: Run Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (125B) on consumer hardware (RTX 4090) at 100T/s. c16, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 5, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 against local LLM inference.

  • Favorable
    Though it is much slower than Sonnet 5.5 and more expensive than both of those.

    Comment on: Mistral Large 4. dom96, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 on the killswitch-lang benchmark against Mistral Large 4.

  • Favorable
    Sonnet 5.5 can be faster on tasks than DeepSeek 4 Flash Vision simply because it gets there faster.

    Comment on: Gemma-4-26B-A4B with 39-69% less thinking at same accuracy. arjie, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 against DeepSeek 4 Flash Vision on tasks.

  • Unfavorable
    for $0.68 and 11 min vs Sonnet's $1.61 and 14 min.

    Comment on: Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. thefourthchime, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 23, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 on the Pac-Man bakeoff against Kimi K3.1 Pro.

  • Favorable
    sonnet uses a fraction of the overall tokens and finishes much faster than the average chinese model

    Comment on: Anthropic S-1. criley2, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort at home, from Artificial Analysis cost per task.

  • Favorable
    opus 5.5 and sonnet 5.5 are much faster too.

    Comment on: GPT 6.1 Sol: Near-Astra intelligence for a fifth of the price. maxdo, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. opus 5.5 and sonnet 5.5 on a Claude subscription with workflows, against Cursor and Grok.

  • Unfavorable
    edit requests on Claude Sonnet 5.5 took 55–63 s in the 2026-10-22 walk (against 23 s the day before)

    Speed: a time budget for every AI flow, measured, with the speedups that don't cost quality. junruxiong, IncarnaMind maintainer (GitHub issue author), self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 for note edit requests in IncarnaMind.

Reliability 18%

  • Unfavorable
    Hit my Claude Sonnet 5.5 limit mid-refactor

    X post by @vvcanvaslab. vvcanvaslab, X user building in public, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 during a refactor, then Gemini 4 Argon and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash in OpenCode.

  • Unfavorable
    Claude had a real outage today across Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1.

    X post by @StatsWire. Stats Wire, AI engineer, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 in Claude Code during the October 25 outage.

  • Unfavorable
    Affected models: Claude Mythos 5.1, Fable 5.1, Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5.

    X post by @atnomos. Will (atnomos), indie builder at Studio Practice, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 and other Claude models through the API and Claude Code on October 25.

  • Unfavorable
    Claude Sonnet 5.5 is throwing 503 errors globally today

    X post by @RishiiManu. RishiiManu, X user posting AI and tech tips, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 through the API on October 25.

  • Unfavorable
    Elevated errors hit Mythos 5.1, Fable 5.1, Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5

    X post by @InfraJump. InfraJump, DevOps company account, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 and the other Claude models across the API and Claude Code, October 23 to 25.

  • Favorable
    A $20 subs on claude and using only sonnet 5.5 will last a lot

    Comment on: Run Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (125B) on consumer hardware (RTX 4090) at 100T/s. martianvoid, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 5, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 on a $20 Claude subscription.

  • Unfavorable
    if I used Sonnet 5.5 for implementation, I'd be out 2h into a session (Team 5x)

    Comment on: SlopCodeBench 10/2026 – Opus 5.5, Astra wins overall, xhigh considered harmful. CharlieDigital, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. Sonnet 5.5 for implementation on a Claude Team 5x plan.

  • Unfavorable
    End of output. Not impressive. No, I have not met a programmer so unreliable.

    Comment on: Superlite: A Faster Alternatie to Superpowers. chrisjj, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 diagnosing an HTML and JS fault from a screenshot.

  • Favorable
    claude 5.5 with price discounts is a step up in terms of quotas

    Comment on: GPT 6.1 Sol: Near-Astra intelligence for a fifth of the price. maxdo, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 29, 2026. opus 5.5 and sonnet 5.5 on a Claude subscription with workflows, against Cursor and Grok.

  • Unfavorable
    5.5 completes 14/16 regression attempts vs 16/16 for Sonnet 5

    [triage][upstream] Sonnet 5.5 Europe route content-filters benign ambiguity fixture in both repeats. sol-aeternum, Daemon maintainer (GitHub issue author), self-described, Sep 29, 2026. openrouter/anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5 at explicit high effort on Google Vertex Europe, upgrade evaluation.

  • Unfavorable
    in just 3 days i went from being an opus 5.5 enjoyer to checking my usage every second on sonnet 5.5 medium.

    X post by @Abidinogluu. Murat Abidinoğlu, X user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. sonnet 5.5 at medium effort on a Claude subscription.