Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Sonnet 5
94
o3-mini
55
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 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.
Coding
+13.9 difference
Knowledge
+19.8 difference
Claude Sonnet 5
o3-mini
$3 / $15
$1.1 / $4.4
N/A
160 t/s
N/A
7.12s
1M
200K
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 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.
Claude Sonnet 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 94 to 55. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Sonnet 5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 63.2 against 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 5 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. Claude Sonnet 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for o3-mini.
Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 94 to 55.
o3-mini has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 57.4. Claude Sonnet 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.2 versus 49.3. o3-mini stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.