Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Laguna S 2.1

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.

53.61/100
No comparison
Laguna S 2.1
Poolside
N/A
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated); Laguna S 2.1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Laguna S 2.1 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 5 to Laguna S 2.1.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
1
Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
11
Laguna S 2.1 only
5
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Sonnet 4.5 makes more sense if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Laguna S 2.1 is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Laguna S 2.1 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.

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.20 output per 1M tokens for Laguna S 2.1. That is roughly 75.0x on output cost alone. Laguna S 2.1 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. Laguna S 2.1 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.5.

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 Sonnet 4.5 and Laguna S 2.1
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.5ΔLaguna S 2.1
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.577.2Margin← 17.8Laguna S 2.159.4
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.555.4Margin→ 14.8Laguna S 2.170.2
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.513.6MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.583.4MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured
MathClaude Sonnet 4.511.2MarginNo overlapLaguna S 2.1Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.5B · Laguna S 2.1

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 50%B 70.2%
    Winner: Laguna S 2.1Δ 20.2
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 50%; Laguna S 2.1 scored 70.2%. Laguna S 2.1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.5Laguna S 2.1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 outputLaguna S 2.1$0.1 input / $0.2 outputLaguna S 2.1 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableLaguna S 2.1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5200KLaguna S 2.11MLaguna S 2.1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticLaguna S 2.1 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Laguna S 2.1Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 50%70.2%Laguna S 2.1 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 61.4%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 17.0%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 48.51%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 27.7%—Not comparable
Toolathlon-VerifiedSource —49.7%Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Laguna S 2.1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.2%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.2%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —78.5%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —59.4%Not comparable
deepSweSource —40.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Laguna S 2.1Result
ARC-AGI-2Source 13.6%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Laguna S 2.1Result
GPQASource 83.4%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Laguna S 2.1Result
AIME 2025Source 87%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 13.495%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Laguna S 2.1Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1219—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Laguna S 2.1?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Laguna S 2.1 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 Sonnet 4.5 or Laguna S 2.1?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 59.4. Laguna S 2.1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Laguna S 2.1?

Laguna S 2.1 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.2 versus 55.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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 21, 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.