Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
42
Claude Opus 4.6
91
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet unranked · Claude Opus 4.6 #3
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Coding
+15.4 difference
Knowledge
+16.8 difference
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Claude Opus 4.6
$null / $null
$5 / $25
N/A
40 t/s
N/A
1.78s
200K
1M
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 91 to 42. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 76.2 against 59.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 59.4% to 91.3%.
Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 91 to 42. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 59.4% and 91.3%.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.2 versus 59.4. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.4 versus 49. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.