Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 55.8
- Supported · #51/183
- o3-mini
- 39.7
- Supported · #134/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads · intervals overlap
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs o3-mini
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 62.96 versus 46.83, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
o3-mini
o3-mini 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
o3-mini
o3-mini 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
O3-mini is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
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. o3-mini 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. o3-mini 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.
23 Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
2 Shared
3 o3-mini only
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 23
- o3-mini only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 52.2
- Supported · #48/151
- o3-mini
- 45.3
- Estimated · #88/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 44.0
- Supported · #93/152
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 67.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 49.0
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not ranked
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 54.1
- #33/48
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 48.2
- #86/123
- o3-mini
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | o3-mini | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 55.8Supported · #51/183 | 39.7Supported · #134/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 2 public rows | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 52.2Supported · #48/151 | 45.3Estimated · #88/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 8 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 44.0Supported · #93/152 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 8 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 67.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 49.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 54.1#33/48 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 48.2#86/123 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
GPQA
Knowledge
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
- o3-mini
- $0.0033
- Fits in one request
o3-mini 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
- o3-mini
- $0.0682
- Fits in one request
o3-mini 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
- o3-mini
- $0.286
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini 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. o3-mini 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 4.6o3-mini
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
200K
o3-mini
200K
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
o3-mini
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
o3-mini
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Non-Reasoning
o3-mini
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
o3-mini
Proprietary
License
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
o3-mini
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Sonnet 4.6
2026-02-01
o3-mini
2025-01-31
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
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 62.96 versus 46.83, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.0682. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.286.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 200K.
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%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.672.1%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Sonnet 4.667.8%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Sonnet 4.665.2%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 4.662.92%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.68.3%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 4.636.9%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.657.3%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.679.6%Sourceo3-mini49.3%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
SWE-Rebench
Claude Sonnet 4.660.7%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Sonnet 4.680.6%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.651.48%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Sonnet 4.648.8%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 4.624.3%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.682.1%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.677.4%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.689.9%Sourceo3-mini77.2%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
SuperGPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.695%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.679.2%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Sonnet 4.649%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.685.6%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.687.3%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
MMLU
Claude Sonnet 4.6—o3-mini86.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 4.677.4%Sourceo3-mini—Not directly comparable
Instruction following
IFEval
Claude Sonnet 4.6—o3-mini93.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or o3-mini?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 62.96 versus 46.83, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or o3-mini?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 52.2 to 45.3. O3-mini is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or o3-mini?
O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or o3-mini?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude Sonnet 4.6 and $0.0033 on o3-mini; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.0682; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.286. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini 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. o3-mini 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 o3-mini?
Both models list the same context window, 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs o3-mini
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.