Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 5
- 76.7
- dots3-note Preview
- 71.7
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5 vs dots3-note Preview
Updated August 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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.
7 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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat 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-rates
Cache-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-rates
Repository 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
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
12 Claude Sonnet 5 only
7 Shared
24 dots3-note Preview only
- Shared results
- 7
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 12
- dots3-note Preview only
- 24
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 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.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 5
- 57.4
- dots3-note Preview
- 52.6
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 5
- 81.9
- dots3-note Preview
- 83.3
- Weighted basis
- 3 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not measured
- dots3-note Preview
- 81.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not measured
- dots3-note Preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not measured
- dots3-note Preview
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- 88.3
- dots3-note Preview
- 79.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not measured
- dots3-note Preview
- 85.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 5 | dots3-note Preview | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 76.7 | 71.7 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| Knowledge | 57.4 | 52.6 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| Agentic | 81.9 | 83.3 | Directional only3 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 81.4 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 88.3 | 79.1 | Not comparable1 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 85.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 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.
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
Claude Sonnet 5: 85.2%dots3-note Preview: 78.4%Normalized gap 6.8Claude Sonnet 5 source dots3-note Preview sourceHLE
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 5: 57.4%dots3-note Preview: 52.6%Normalized gap 4.8Claude Sonnet 5 source dots3-note Preview sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Sonnet 5: 63.2%dots3-note Preview: 61%Normalized gap 2.2Claude Sonnet 5 source dots3-note Preview sourceBrowseComp
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 5: 84.7%dots3-note Preview: 83.3%Normalized gap 1.4Claude Sonnet 5 source dots3-note Preview source
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
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
- dots3-note Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
dots3-note Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
- dots3-note Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
dots3-note Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5
- $0.18
- Fits in one request
- dots3-note Preview
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
dots3-note Preview has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 5dots3-note Preview
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 5
dots3-note Preview
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 5
claude-sonnet-5
Anthropic model overviewdots3-note Preview
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
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingdots3-note Preview
No comparable hosted API rate
dots3-note Preview model cardDocumented inputs
Claude Sonnet 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewdots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 5
dots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewdots3-note Preview
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 5
Reasoning
dots3-note Preview
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
dots3-note Preview
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
dots3-note Preview
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 5
2026-06-30
dots3-note Preview
2026-08-14
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
- Claude Sonnet 5 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 evidence43 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Sonnet 514.6%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 584.7%Sourcedots3-note Preview83.3%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 557.4%Sourcedots3-note Preview52.6%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 581.2%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview73.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview75.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview55.6%SourceNot directly comparable
skillsBench
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview52.8%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview30.8%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview92.1%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview78.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 585.2%Sourcedots3-note Preview78.4%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 563.2%Sourcedots3-note Preview61%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 578.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview75.7%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 528.1%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 542.7%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Sonnet 561.5%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
APEX-SWE
Claude Sonnet 546.4%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
EEBench
Claude Sonnet 540.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
3DCodeBench
Claude Sonnet 539.2%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
Codeforces
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview3056.0SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview91.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview75.1%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview49.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview81.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
IMOAnswerBench
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview90.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 588.3%Sourcedots3-note Preview—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 577%Sourcedots3-note Preview83.1%Sourcedots3-note Preview leads this result
SimpleVQA
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview72.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview79.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview87.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ZeroBench
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview19.0%SourceNot directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview60.7%SourceNot directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview53.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview50.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MMVU
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview79.9%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Sonnet 5—dots3-note Preview86.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or dots3-note Preview?
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 or dots3-note Preview?
Claude Sonnet 5 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or dots3-note Preview?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or dots3-note Preview?
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 or dots3-note Preview?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 512K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 14, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs dots3-note Preview
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.