Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 66.0
- Interfaze Beta
- 89.9
- Weighted basis
- 4 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Interfaze Beta
Updated August 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Interfaze Beta
Interfaze Beta has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Interfaze Beta
Interfaze Beta has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Interfaze Beta
Interfaze Beta has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Interfaze Beta has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
19 Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
1 Shared
8 Interfaze Beta only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 19
- Interfaze Beta only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 65.2
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 69.1
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not measured
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 26.4
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not measured
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 77.4
- Interfaze Beta
- 71.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not measured
- Interfaze Beta
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Interfaze Beta | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 66.0 | 89.9 | Directional only4 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 65.2 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 69.1 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 26.4 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 77.4 | 71.1 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- Interfaze Beta
- $0.00325
- Fits in one request
Interfaze Beta has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- Interfaze Beta
- $0.0855
- Fits in one request
Interfaze Beta has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Interfaze Beta
- $0.365
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Interfaze Beta has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 4.6Interfaze Beta
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
200K
Interfaze Beta
1M
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Interfaze Beta
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not published
Interfaze Beta
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Interfaze Beta
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Interfaze Beta
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Interfaze Beta
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Non-Reasoning
Interfaze Beta
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
Interfaze Beta
Proprietary
License
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
Interfaze Beta
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Sonnet 4.6
2026-02-01
Interfaze Beta
2026-05-11
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.0855. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.365.
- Context tradeoff
- Interfaze Beta has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence28 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.659.1%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.672.1%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Sonnet 4.667.8%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Sonnet 4.665.2%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 4.662.92%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.68.3%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 4.636.9%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.679.6%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude Sonnet 4.660.7%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Sonnet 4.680.6%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.651.48%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Sonnet 4.648.8%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 4.624.3%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
Spider 2.0-Lite
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Interfaze Beta52.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.689.9%SourceInterfaze Beta89.9%SourceTie
SuperGPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.695%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.679.2%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Sonnet 4.649%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Interfaze Beta89.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMLU
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Interfaze Beta90.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 4.677.4%SourceInterfaze Beta—Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Interfaze Beta70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
olmOCR
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Interfaze Beta85.7%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Interfaze Beta82.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Interfaze Beta71.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
SOB Value Acc
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Interfaze Beta79.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Interfaze Beta?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Interfaze Beta?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Interfaze Beta?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Interfaze Beta?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude Sonnet 4.6 and $0.00325 on Interfaze Beta; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.0855; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.365. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Interfaze Beta has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Interfaze Beta?
Interfaze Beta has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 10, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Interfaze Beta
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.