Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Sonnet 5
Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Claude Sonnet 5 #32 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Claude Sonnet 5 share 27 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 52 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 9 to Claude Sonnet 5.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 27
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 52
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 5 only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 27 shared benchmark results across 5 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 64.65. 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 coding, where it averages 89.5 against 76.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 79.2% to 63.2%. Claude Sonnet 5 does hit back in multimodal & grounded, 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 $2.00 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Sonnet 5. That is roughly 2.5x on output cost alone.
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 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | Margin→ 21.4 | Claude Sonnet 588.3 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 12.8 | Claude Sonnet 576.7 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 8.9 | Claude Sonnet 581.9 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin← 7.3 | Claude Sonnet 557.4 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 5Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 79.2%B 63.2%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 16SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 63.2%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 96%B 85.2%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 10.8SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 5 scored 96%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 85.2%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 64.7%B 57.4%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 7.3HLE: Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 57.4%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 90.8%B 84.7%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 6.1BrowseComp: Claude Opus 5 scored 90.8%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 84.7%. 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 5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Claude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 output | Claude Sonnet 5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Claude Sonnet 51M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins29 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | 84.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | 57.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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 | 1603 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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% | 46.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 55.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | 28.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | 1386 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | 80.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 39.2% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 90.1% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | 85.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | 63.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | 78.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | 28.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | 42.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | 61.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 71.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 53.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | 57.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | 43.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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% | 53.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 91.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 39.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | 15.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 38.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 37.3% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 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% | 77.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| CharXivSource | — | 88.3% | Not comparable |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | — | 77% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1314 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 64.65. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 79.2% and 63.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 57.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 76.7. Inside this category, SWE Multimodal is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 81.9. Inside this category, AA Briefcase is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.3 versus 66.9. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.