Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Agents-A1

InternScience

61.3/100

Estimated · Public rank #53

90% interval 51.4–71.1

Agents-A1 vs Claude Sonnet 5

Updated August 21, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Claude Sonnet 5

Anthropic

64.6/100

Estimated · Public rank #37

90% interval 50.6–78.6

Decision reading

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.58 versus 61.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Sonnet 5

    Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
3
Agents-A1 only
3
Claude Sonnet 5 only
13
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Agents-A1
47.6
Claude Sonnet 5
57.4
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Agentic

Directional only
Agents-A1
75.5
Claude Sonnet 5
81.9
Weighted basis
1 vs 3 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Not comparable
Agents-A1
Not measured
Claude Sonnet 5
76.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Agents-A1
60.2
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Agents-A1
Not measured
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Agents-A1
Not measured
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Agents-A1
Not measured
Claude Sonnet 5
88.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Agents-A1
94.8
Claude Sonnet 5
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Agents-A1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Claude Sonnet 5
$0.007
Fits in one request

Agents-A1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Agents-A1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Claude Sonnet 5
$0.13
Fits in one request

Agents-A1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Agents-A1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Sonnet 5
$0.18
Fits in one request

Agents-A1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Agents-A1

262K

Claude Sonnet 5

1M

Anthropic model overview

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Agents-A1

No comparable hosted API rate

Claude Sonnet 5

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Reasoning profile

Agents-A1

Reasoning

Claude Sonnet 5

Reasoning

Weight access

Agents-A1

Open Weight

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

License

Agents-A1

Open Weight

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Release date

Agents-A1

2026-06-26

Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.58 versus 61.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence19 rows

Agentic

  • BrowseComp

    Agents-A175.5%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 584.7%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • HLE w/ tools

    Agents-A147.6%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • VITA-Bench

    Agents-A138.8%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 514.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 581.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 585.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 563.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 578.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 528.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 542.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 561.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    Agents-A160.2%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Agents-A147.6%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 543.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 588.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Agents-A1—
    Claude Sonnet 577%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Agents-A194.8%
    Source
    Claude Sonnet 5—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Agents-A1 or Claude Sonnet 5?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.58 versus 61.25, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Agents-A1 or Claude Sonnet 5?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Agents-A1 or Claude Sonnet 5?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Agents-A1 or Claude Sonnet 5?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Agents-A1 or Claude Sonnet 5?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 21, 2026

Watch Agents-A1 vs Claude Sonnet 5

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.