Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
Updated October 16, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 only
- 48
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 only
- 14
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Claude Sonnet 5.5How the comparison works
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.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documentedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
84.2Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
48 Claude Sonnet 5.5 only
5 Shared
14 Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 only
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.
HLE w/o toolsKnowledge
Normalized gap 20.9Claude Sonnet 5.5:56.9%Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8:36%SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 15.4Claude Sonnet 5.5:81.3%Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8:65.9%SWE MultilingualCoding
Normalized gap 12.2Claude Sonnet 5.5:90.3%Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8:78.1%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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.
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 69.3
- Supported · #11/128
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 14 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 84.2
- Supported · #1/150
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 82.7
- #7/28
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
- 85.8
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 86.7
- Unranked · 7 rankable rows
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 82.5
- Supported · #5/184
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 16 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Not ranked
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Not ranked
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
- 89.8
- #28/148
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 95.2
- Unranked · 4 rankable rows
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
- 87.9
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 69.3Supported · #11/128 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 14 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 84.2Supported · #1/150 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 7 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 82.7#7/28 | 85.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 86.7Unranked · 7 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 82.5Supported · #5/184 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 16 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 89.8#28/148 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 95.2Unranked · 4 rankable rows | 87.9Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
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 5.5
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- $0.16
- Fits in one request
- Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 5.5Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 5.5
claude-sonnet-5-5
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5 model documentationBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
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 5.5
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
No comparable hosted API rate
Reflection Hugging Face model cardDocumented inputs
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Generally Available · Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Platform on AWS
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5 model documentationBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
Open Weights · Hugging Face, self-hosted inference
Reflection Beam 1.0 FP8 model cardReasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Reasoning
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Proprietary
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Proprietary
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 5.5
2026-09-28
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
2026-10-16
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
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8?
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 5.5 or Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8?
Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence67 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Sonnet 5.570.60%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 5.564.5%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP851.1%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
DRACO
Claude Sonnet 5.587.0%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Sonnet 5.559.9%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Sonnet 5.510.0%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Sonnet 5.593.1%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Sonnet 5.585.2%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Sonnet 5.568.5%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Sonnet 5.531.6 turnsSourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench (Zapier 1.0.6)
Claude Sonnet 5.544.70%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Sonnet 5.577.8%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Hermes Index
Claude Sonnet 5.553.1%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Hermes Bench
Claude Sonnet 5.573.5%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Claude Sonnet 5.58%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP836.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP878.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP881.5%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP876.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP879.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 5.546.2%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Claude Sonnet 5.555.5%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 5.581.3%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP865.9%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 5.590.3%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP878.1%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 5.554.3%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Sonnet 5.571.0%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP843.0%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Sonnet 5.579.7%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Sonnet 5.561.9%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Claude Sonnet 5.551.3 fixesSourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP878.9%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP832.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP880.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP848.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
Chartography (no tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.561.6%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.590.2%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.50.747SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.50.963SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Biomedical image analysis
Claude Sonnet 5.572.2%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Claude Sonnet 5.576.9%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Sonnet 5.565.6%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
HealthBench (raw)
Claude Sonnet 5.569.4%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Claude Sonnet 5.565.4%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Claude Sonnet 5.577.1%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Sonnet 5.569.2%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Claude Sonnet 5.589.2%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Sonnet 5.544.7%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Claude Sonnet 5.572.5%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Sonnet 5.551.0%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Morphology-to-molecule matching
Claude Sonnet 5.525.0%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Medicinal chemistry
Claude Sonnet 5.565.3%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Protein Design library ranking
Claude Sonnet 5.554.8%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
De novo protein-binder design
Claude Sonnet 5.582.3%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Sonnet 5.567.3%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Claude Sonnet 5.566.6%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 5.556.9%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP836%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP890.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Instruction following
IFBench
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP880.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (no tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.586.8%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.595.2%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Sonnet 5.588.772%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Sonnet 5.580.488%SourceBeam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8—Not directly comparable
AIME26
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP898.0%SourceNot directly comparable
67 public results · 5 shared
Watch Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Beam 1.0 501B-A23B FP8
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,600+ readers.
Last updated October 16, 2026