Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Claude Sonnet 4.5 #98 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 77 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 10 to Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 77
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.5 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 4 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 52.89. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 90.4 against 13.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is ARC-AGI-2, 90.4% to 13.6%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Opus 5 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 4.5. Claude Opus 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.5 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.
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 5 | Δ | Claude Sonnet 4.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | Margin← 76.8 | Claude Sonnet 4.513.6 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 35.4 | Claude Sonnet 4.555.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin→ 18.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.583.4 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 12.3 | Claude Sonnet 4.577.2 |
| Math | Claude Opus 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.511.2 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
ARC-AGI-2
ReasoningA 90.4%B 13.6%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 76.8ARC-AGI-2: Claude Opus 5 scored 90.4%; Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 13.6%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 96%B 77.2%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 18.8SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 5 scored 96%; Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 77.2%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Claude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 output | Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Claude Sonnet 4.5200K | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins29 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 50% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 61.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 17.0% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 48.51% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 27.7% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | 77.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | — | Not comparable |
ReasoningClaude Opus 5 wins5 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
Math8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMO 2026Source | 42/42 | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (no tools)Source | 60.0% | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (tools)Source | 79.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)Source | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)Source | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME 2025Source | — | 87% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 13.495% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 4.167% | Not comparable |
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1219 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 52.89. The biggest single separator in this matchup is ARC-AGI-2, where the scores are 90.4% and 13.6%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.4 versus 64.7. Claude Opus 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 77.2. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 90.4 versus 13.6. Inside this category, ARC-AGI-2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 55.4. Claude Sonnet 4.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.