Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs MAI-Thinking-1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

47.74/100
No comparison
N/A
0 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and MAI-Thinking-1 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 11 to MAI-Thinking-1.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
2
MAI-Thinking-1 only
11
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude 3.5 Sonnet makes more sense if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; MAI-Thinking-1 is the better fit if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude 3.5 Sonnet and MAI-Thinking-1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

MAI-Thinking-1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 3.5 Sonnet is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. MAI-Thinking-1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and MAI-Thinking-1
CategoryClaude 3.5 SonnetΔMAI-Thinking-1
MathClaude 3.5 Sonnet1.6Margin 88.1MAI-Thinking-189.7
CodingClaude 3.5 Sonnet49.0Margin 16.5MAI-Thinking-165.5
KnowledgeClaude 3.5 Sonnet59.4Margin 13.1MAI-Thinking-172.5
AgenticClaude 3.5 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-146.0
Inst. FollowingClaude 3.5 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-185.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude 3.5 SonnetB · MAI-Thinking-1
  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 59.4%B 84.2%
    Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 24.8
    GPQA: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 59.4%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 84.2%. MAI-Thinking-1 wins this benchmark.
  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 49%B 73.5%
    Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 24.5
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 49%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 73.5%. MAI-Thinking-1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude 3.5 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 outputMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet200KMAI-Thinking-1256KMAI-Thinking-1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46%Not comparable
CodingMAI-Thinking-1 wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 49%73.5%MAI-Thinking-1 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 52.8%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
Graphwalks BFS 128KSource 90%Not comparable
KnowledgeMAI-Thinking-1 wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
GPQASource 59.4%84.2%MAI-Thinking-1 leads
GPQA-DSource 84.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 85%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 31%Not comparable
MathMAI-Thinking-1 wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 2.069%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 0.000%Not comparable
AIME 2025Source 97%Not comparable
AIME26Source 94.5%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 84.9%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
IFBenchSource 85%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude 3.5 Sonnet and MAI-Thinking-1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MAI-Thinking-1?

MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.5 versus 59.4. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MAI-Thinking-1?

MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 65.5 versus 49. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or MAI-Thinking-1?

MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 1.6. Claude 3.5 Sonnet stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.