Agentic
Not comparable- Cartesia Sonic 3.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- 90.8
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Cartesia Sonic 3.5 vs Claude Opus 5
Updated August 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 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.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
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
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Not enough matched evidence
A complete context comparison is not sourced.
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.
63 Claude Opus 5 only
- Shared results
- 0
- Cartesia Sonic 3.5 only
- 0
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 63
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
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.
Coding
Not comparable- Cartesia Sonic 3.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- 89.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Cartesia Sonic 3.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- 90.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Cartesia Sonic 3.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- 64.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Cartesia Sonic 3.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Cartesia Sonic 3.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Cartesia Sonic 3.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- 66.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Cartesia Sonic 3.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 5
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Cartesia Sonic 3.5 | Claude Opus 5 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | 90.8 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 89.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 90.4 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 64.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 66.9 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | 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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
- Cartesia Sonic 3.5
- API rate not published
- Fit state unavailable
- Claude Opus 5
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
Cartesia Sonic 3.5 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Cartesia Sonic 3.5
- API rate not published
- Fit state unavailable
- Claude Opus 5
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
Cartesia Sonic 3.5 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Cartesia Sonic 3.5
- API rate not published
- Fit state unavailable
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Claude Opus 5
- $0.45
- Fits in one request
Cartesia Sonic 3.5 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.
SpecificationCartesia Sonic 3.5Claude Opus 5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Cartesia Sonic 3.5
N/A
Claude Opus 5
API model ID
Cartesia Sonic 3.5
Not sourced
Claude Opus 5
claude-opus-5
Anthropic model overviewCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Cartesia Sonic 3.5
No comparable hosted API rate
Claude Opus 5
$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingDocumented inputs
Cartesia Sonic 3.5
Not sourced
Claude Opus 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewDocumented outputs
Cartesia Sonic 3.5
Not sourced
Claude Opus 5
Provider availability
Cartesia Sonic 3.5
Not sourced
Claude Opus 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewReasoning profile
Cartesia Sonic 3.5
Non-Reasoning
Claude Opus 5
Reasoning
Weight access
Cartesia Sonic 3.5
Proprietary
Claude Opus 5
Proprietary
License
Cartesia Sonic 3.5
Proprietary
Claude Opus 5
Proprietary
Release date
Cartesia Sonic 3.5
2026-05-04
Claude Opus 5
2026-07-24
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
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- A complete documented context comparison is not available.
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 evidence63 rows
Agentic
FrontierBench v0.1
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 543.3%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 590.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 564.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 595.0%SourceNot directly comparable
DRACO
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 588.6%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 593.6%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 570.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 585.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Atlas claim coverage
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 589.1%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 523.58%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 593.74%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 511.7%SourceNot directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 594.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 580.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 587.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 573.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 523.5 turnsSourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 526.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 596%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 579.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 589.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 559.4%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 568.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 553.4%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 563.6%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench (episode 1)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 583.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ProgramBench
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 593.0%SourceNot directly comparable
cursorBench32
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 570.0%SourceNot directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 587.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
HLE
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 564.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 556.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench (raw)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 567.1%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 557.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 559.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 573.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 590.1%SourceNot directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 549.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 572.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 560.6%SourceNot directly comparable
ProteinGym Hard
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 547.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Protein Design
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 542.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Organic chemistry V2
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 561.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 561.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 578.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
IMO 2026
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 542/42SourceNot directly comparable
RiemannBench (no tools)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 560.0%SourceNot directly comparable
RiemannBench (tools)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 579.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 590.8%SourceNot directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 591.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
Chartography (no tools)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 529.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 583.0%SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 50.366SourceNot directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 50.821SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 583.4%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (tools)
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 585.5%SourceNot directly comparable
OfficeQA
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 578.1%SourceNot directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Cartesia Sonic 3.5—Claude Opus 566.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Cartesia Sonic 3.5 or Claude Opus 5?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Cartesia Sonic 3.5 or Claude Opus 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, Cartesia Sonic 3.5 or Claude Opus 5?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Cartesia Sonic 3.5 or Claude Opus 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, Cartesia Sonic 3.5 or Claude Opus 5?
A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 4, 2026
Watch Cartesia Sonic 3.5 vs Claude Opus 5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.