Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Soofi S 30B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 5 and Soofi S 30B-A3B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 36 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 5; 8 to Soofi S 30B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 36
- Soofi S 30B-A3B only
- 8
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Soofi S 30B-A3B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Sonnet 5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 45. 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 knowledge, where it averages 57.4 against 49.9.
Claude Sonnet 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Soofi S 30B-A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Sonnet 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Soofi S 30B-A3B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 output | Soofi S 30B-A3B$0 input / $0 output | Soofi S 30B-A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | Soofi S 30B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 51M | Soofi S 30B-A3B1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 81.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1607 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 55.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1388 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 39.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 5.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 28.2% | — | Not comparable |
Coding11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 63.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 78.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 28.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCodeSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 61.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 80.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HumanEvalSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 5 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 15.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 37.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 43.4% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 43.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 51.4% | Not comparable |
| AGIEvalSource | — | 66.9% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Soofi S 30B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GSM8KSource | — | 86.1% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Soofi S 30B-A3B?
Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 45.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Soofi S 30B-A3B?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.4 versus 49.9. Soofi S 30B-A3B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.