Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
41
o1-pro
29
Pick Claude 3.5 Sonnet if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1-pro only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Knowledge
+19.6 difference
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
o1-pro
$3 / $15
$150 / $600
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
200K
200K
Pick Claude 3.5 Sonnet if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1-pro only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 41 to 29. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o1-pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $150.00 input / $600.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude 3.5 Sonnet. That is roughly 40.0x on output cost alone. o1-pro 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.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 41 to 29. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 59.4% and 79%.
o1-pro has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 59.4. Inside this category, GPQA 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.