Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-5.5 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.07/100
Margin
1.4pts
← winning
63.69/100
1 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); GPT-5.5 Pro #38 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.5 Pro share 4 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 29 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 3 to GPT-5.5 Pro.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
4
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
29
GPT-5.5 Pro only
3
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 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 4.6 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 65.07 versus 63.69. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Sonnet 4.6's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 66 against 57.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 8.300% to 39.600%. GPT-5.5 Pro does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

GPT-5.5 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $30.00 input / $180.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Sonnet 4.6. That is roughly 12.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.5 Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 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. GPT-5.5 Pro 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 scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.5 Pro
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔGPT-5.5 Pro
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2Margin 24.9GPT-5.5 Pro90.1
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4Margin 21.7GPT-5.5 Pro48.1
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0Margin 8.8GPT-5.5 Pro57.2
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1MarginNo overlapGPT-5.5 ProNot measured
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4MarginNo overlapGPT-5.5 ProNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · GPT-5.5 Pro
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 8.300%B 39.600%
    Winner: GPT-5.5 ProΔ 31.3
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 8.300%; GPT-5.5 Pro scored 39.600%. GPT-5.5 Pro wins this benchmark.
  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 32.400%B 51.000%
    Winner: GPT-5.5 ProΔ 18.6
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 32.400%; GPT-5.5 Pro scored 51.000%. GPT-5.5 Pro wins this benchmark.
  3. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 49%B 57.2%
    Winner: GPT-5.5 ProΔ 8.2
    HLE: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%; GPT-5.5 Pro scored 57.2%. GPT-5.5 Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.5 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputGPT-5.5 Pro$30 input / $180 outputClaude Sonnet 4.6 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sGPT-5.5 ProNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sGPT-5.5 ProNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KGPT-5.5 Pro1MGPT-5.5 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGPT-5.5 Pro wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.5 ProResult
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
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 62.92%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 90.1%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.5 ProResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 60.7%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 80.6%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 51.48%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 48.8%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.5 ProResult
AA-LCRSource 57.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.9%30.6%GPT-5.5 Pro leads
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.5 ProResult
GPQASource 89.9%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 95%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%Not comparable
HLESource 49%57.2%GPT-5.5 Pro leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 13.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 43.1%Not comparable
MathGPT-5.5 Pro wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.5 ProResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%51.000%GPT-5.5 Pro leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%39.600%GPT-5.5 Pro leads
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 52.4%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.5 ProResult
CharXivSource 77.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1314Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.5 ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GPT-5.5 Pro?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.07 to 63.69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 8.300% and 39.600%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GPT-5.5 Pro?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 57.2. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GPT-5.5 Pro?

GPT-5.5 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 48.1 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 Sonnet 4.6 or GPT-5.5 Pro?

GPT-5.5 Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.1 versus 65.2. Claude Sonnet 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 22, 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.