Agentic
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 5
- 66.0
- Supported · #12/151
- Laguna S 2.1
- 48.2
- Estimated · #77/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Laguna S 2.1
Updated September 4, 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.
4 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
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 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
Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 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
Laguna S 2.1 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
Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
19 Claude Sonnet 5 only
4 Shared
2 Laguna S 2.1 only
- Shared results
- 4
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 19
- Laguna S 2.1 only
- 2
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 categories rest 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 5
- 64.2
- Supported · #13/183
- Laguna S 2.1
- 47.8
- Estimated · #87/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- 76.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- 67.1
- Supported · #20/181
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- 77.3
- #13/48
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5
- Not ranked
- Laguna S 2.1
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 5 | Laguna S 2.1 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 66.0Supported · #12/151 | 48.2Estimated · #77/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 64.2Supported · #13/183 | 47.8Estimated · #87/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 76.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 67.1Supported · #20/181 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 77.3#13/48 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 5: 80.4%Laguna S 2.1: 70.2%Normalized gap 10.2Claude Sonnet 5 source Laguna S 2.1 sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Sonnet 5: 63.2%Laguna S 2.1: 59.4%Normalized gap 3.8Claude Sonnet 5 source Laguna S 2.1 sourceSWE Multilingual
Coding
Claude Sonnet 5: 78.3%Laguna S 2.1: 78.5%Normalized gap 0.2Claude Sonnet 5 source Laguna S 2.1 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
- Laguna S 2.1
- $0.0002
- Fits in one request
Laguna S 2.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
- Laguna S 2.1
- $0.0056
- Fits in one request
Laguna S 2.1 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 5
- $0.18
- Fits in one request
- Laguna S 2.1
- $0.006
- Fits in one request
Laguna S 2.1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 5Laguna S 2.1
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 5
Laguna S 2.1
1M
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 5
claude-sonnet-5
Anthropic model overviewLaguna S 2.1
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 pricingLaguna S 2.1
$0.01 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewLaguna S 2.1
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 5
Laguna S 2.1
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewLaguna S 2.1
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 5
Reasoning
Laguna S 2.1
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
Laguna S 2.1
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 5
Proprietary
Laguna S 2.1
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 5
2026-06-30
Laguna S 2.1
2026-07-21
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
- Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.0056. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.18 vs $0.006.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 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 evidence25 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Sonnet 514.6%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%SourceLaguna S 2.170.2%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 584.7%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 557.4%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 581.2%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 574.5%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Sonnet 5—Laguna S 2.149.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 585.2%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 563.2%SourceLaguna S 2.159.4%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 578.3%SourceLaguna S 2.178.5%SourceLaguna S 2.1 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 528.1%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%SourceLaguna S 2.170.2%SourceClaude Sonnet 5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 542.7%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Sonnet 561.5%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 582.4%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 579.6%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Sonnet 5—Laguna S 2.140.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE
Claude Sonnet 557.4%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 543.2%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
HLE-Verified
Claude Sonnet 531.0%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Claude Sonnet 580.1%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 588.9%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 587.5%SourceLaguna S 2.1—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Laguna S 2.1?
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 Laguna S 2.1?
Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 64.2 to 47.8. Laguna S 2.1 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 5 or Laguna S 2.1?
Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 66 to 48.2. Laguna S 2.1 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or Laguna S 2.1?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5 and $0.0002 on Laguna S 2.1; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.0056; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.18 and $0.006. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or Laguna S 2.1?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs Laguna S 2.1
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.