Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs o1-pro
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #34 (Supported); o1-pro #148 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and o1-pro share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 31 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 0 to o1-pro.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 31
- o1-pro only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1-pro only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.4 to 45.03. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o1-pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $150.00 input / $600.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Sonnet 4.6. That is roughly 40.0x on output cost alone. o1-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.
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 Sonnet 4.6 | Δ | o1-pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 | Margin→ 13.0 | o1-pro79.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 | MarginNo overlap | o1-proNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 | MarginNo overlap | o1-proNot measured |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 | MarginNo overlap | o1-proNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 | MarginNo overlap | o1-proNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 89.9%B 79%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 10.9GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 89.9%; o1-pro scored 79%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | o1-pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | o1-pro$150 input / $600 output | Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | o1-proNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | o1-proNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | o1-pro200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | o1-pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | o1-pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledgeo1-pro wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | o1-pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 89.9% | 79% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.9% | 18.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| 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 |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | o1-pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.2% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or o1-pro?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.4 to 45.03. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 89.9% and 79%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or o1-pro?
o1-pro has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 66. Inside this category, Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.