Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #69 (Estimated); Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Claude Sonnet 4.6 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 19 to Claude Sonnet 4.6.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
- 2
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 19
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Claude Sonnet 4.6 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
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 | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Δ | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking200K | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 89.5% | 79.5% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.1% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 72.1% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 67.8% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 65.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 62.92% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 8.3% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 36.9% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 20.63% | 51.48% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 49.5% | 46.9% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 79.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 60.7% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 80.6% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 48.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 24.3% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.8% | 35.9% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.6% | 79.9% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| AA-HLESource | 28.4% | 13.2% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 13.3% | -2.9% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.7% | 38.0% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 59.8% | 65.9% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 95% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 79.2% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 49% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.0% | 41.2% | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Claude Sonnet 4.6 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Claude Sonnet 4.6 today?
Claude Sonnet 4.6: $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
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.