Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude 4 Sonnet vs MAI-Thinking-1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

42.79/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4 Sonnet #158 (Supported); MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4 Sonnet and MAI-Thinking-1 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Claude 4 Sonnet; 12 to MAI-Thinking-1.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
1
Claude 4 Sonnet only
15
MAI-Thinking-1 only
12
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude 4 Sonnet makes more sense if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; MAI-Thinking-1 is the better fit if you need the larger 256K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 Sonnet and MAI-Thinking-1
CategoryClaude 4 SonnetΔMAI-Thinking-1
CodingClaude 4 Sonnet72.7Margin← 7.2MAI-Thinking-165.5
AgenticClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-146.0
KnowledgeClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-172.5
MathClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-189.7
Inst. FollowingClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-185.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude 4 SonnetB · MAI-Thinking-1

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 72.7%B 73.5%
    Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 0.8
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4 Sonnet scored 72.7%; 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 4 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4 Sonnet$3 input / $15 outputMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4 Sonnet40 tok/sMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4 Sonnet1.33 sMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4 Sonnet200KMAI-Thinking-1256KMAI-Thinking-1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 52.3%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 39.66%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 18.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —46%Not comparable
CodingClaude 4 Sonnet wins
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 72.7%73.5%MAI-Thinking-1 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 37.3%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —52.8%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —46.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
AA-LCRSource 44.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 1.1%—Not comparable
Graphwalks BFS 128KSource —90%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 25.5%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 68.3%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 4.0%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 22.4%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 40.8%—Not comparable
GPQASource —84.2%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —84.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —85%Not comparable
SimpleQASource —31%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
AIME 2025Source —97%Not comparable
AIME26Source —94.5%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —84.9%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 62.4%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1175—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetMAI-Thinking-1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 45.4%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource —85%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude 4 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 coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude 4 Sonnet has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.7 versus 65.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
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.