Coding
Directional only- Claude 4 Sonnet
- 72.7
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 69.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude 4 Sonnet vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
Updated September 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher public score, 64.57 versus 41.9, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
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.
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
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
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
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
No clear pick
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
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
No clear pick
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.
3 Shared
17 Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- Shared results
- 3
- Claude 4 Sonnet only
- 0
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 17
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 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.
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 65.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 66.0
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 26.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 77.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 4 Sonnet
- Not measured
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4 Sonnet | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 72.7 | 69.1 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | 65.2 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 66.0 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 26.4 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 77.4 | 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.
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.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude 4 Sonnet: 72.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6: 79.6%Normalized gap 6.9Claude 4 Sonnet source Claude Sonnet 4.6 source
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
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
Modeled costs are equal
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
Modeled costs are equal
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 4 Sonnet
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 4 SonnetClaude Sonnet 4.6
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 4 Sonnet
200K
Claude Sonnet 4.6
200K
API model ID
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not published
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not sourced
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 4 Sonnet
Non-Reasoning
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 4 Sonnet
Proprietary
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
License
Claude 4 Sonnet
Proprietary
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
Release date
Claude 4 Sonnet
2025-05-01
Claude Sonnet 4.6
2026-02-01
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Anthropic as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher public score, 64.57 versus 41.9, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.195. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.81.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 200K.
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 evidence20 rows
Agentic
Gert Labs
Shared sourceClaude 4 Sonnet39.66%Claude Sonnet 4.662.92%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
JobBench
Shared sourceClaude 4 Sonnet18.4%Claude Sonnet 4.636.9%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude 4 Sonnet—Claude Sonnet 4.659.1%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude 4 Sonnet—Claude Sonnet 4.672.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude 4 Sonnet—Claude Sonnet 4.667.8%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude 4 Sonnet—Claude Sonnet 4.665.2%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude 4 Sonnet—Claude Sonnet 4.68.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude 4 Sonnet72.7%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.679.6%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
SWE-Rebench
Claude 4 Sonnet—Claude Sonnet 4.660.7%SourceNot directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude 4 Sonnet—Claude Sonnet 4.680.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude 4 Sonnet—Claude Sonnet 4.651.48%SourceNot directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude 4 Sonnet—Claude Sonnet 4.648.8%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude 4 Sonnet—Claude Sonnet 4.624.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Multimodal
CharXiv
Claude 4 Sonnet—Claude Sonnet 4.677.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher public score, 64.57 versus 41.9, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
The current coding 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 is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4 Sonnet or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
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, Claude 4 Sonnet or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude 4 Sonnet and $0.0105 on Claude Sonnet 4.6; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.195; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.81. Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 4 Sonnet or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Both models list the same context window, 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 3, 2026
Watch Claude 4 Sonnet vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.