Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs o3-mini
Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #34 (Supported); o3-mini #141 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and o3-mini share 7 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 26 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 3 to o3-mini.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 7
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 26
- o3-mini only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 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 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.4 to 46.59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Sonnet 4.6's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 69.1 against 49.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 79.6% to 49.3%. o3-mini does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.10 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for o3-mini. That is roughly 3.4x on output cost alone. o3-mini 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 | o3-mini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 | Margin← 19.8 | o3-mini49.3 |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 | Margin→ 11.2 | o3-mini77.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 | MarginNo overlap | o3-miniNot measured |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 | MarginNo overlap | o3-miniNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 | MarginNo overlap | o3-miniNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Sonnet 4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | o3-mini93.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 79.6%B 49.3%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 30.3SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%; o3-mini scored 49.3%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 89.9%B 77.2%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 12.7GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 89.9%; o3-mini scored 77.2%. 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 | o3-mini | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | o3-mini$1.1 input / $4.4 output | o3-mini has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | o3-mini160 tok/s | o3-mini has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | o3-mini7.12 s | Claude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | o3-mini200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | o3-mini | 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% | 28.7% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.92% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 8.3% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.9% | — | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | o3-mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.6% | 49.3% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| 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% | 39.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledgeo3-mini wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | o3-mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 89.9% | 77.2% | 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% | 19.0% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.9% | 74.8% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 13.2% | 8.7% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -2.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 65.9% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLUSource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or o3-mini?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.4 to 46.59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 79.6% and 49.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or o3-mini?
o3-mini has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 66. Inside this category, Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or o3-mini?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 49.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.