Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
Head-to-head evidence from 30 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 share 30 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 3 to Claude Sonnet 4.6.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 30
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 16
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.6 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 30 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 5 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 68.59 to 65.07. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 36.3 against 26.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 22.900% to 8.300%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Sonnet 4.6. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.
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 4.6 | Δ | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | Margin← 9.9 | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | Margin← 7.8 | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.1 | Margin← 3.1 | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.668.1 | Margin→ 1.0 | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | Margin→ 0.1 | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 22.900%B 8.300%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 14.6FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.6 scored 22.900%; Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 8.300%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 40.700%B 32.400%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 8.3FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.6 scored 40.700%; Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 32.400%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 65.4%B 59.1%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 6.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-Rebench
CodingA 65.3%B 60.7%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 4.6SWE-Rebench: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.3%; Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 60.7%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 53%B 49%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 4HLE: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%; Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | Claude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | Claude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | 59.1% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | 72.1% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 79.5% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | 67.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | 65.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | 62.92% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | 36.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 8.3% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | 79.6% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | 60.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | 80.6% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | 51.48% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 46.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 26.9% | 24.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 48.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | 89.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | 95% | Tie |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | 79.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | 49% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.8% | 35.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | 79.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | 13.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | -2.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | 38.0% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | 65.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
MathClaude Opus 4.6 wins3 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | 51.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 83.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 64.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 72.5% | 70.6% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1328 | 1317 | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| CharXivSource | — | 77.4% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.6% | 41.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 65.07. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 22.900% and 8.300%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 66. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 68.1. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 36.3 versus 26.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 versus 65.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.4 versus 77.3. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.