Data as of October 17, 2026 · How the score is built
Released Sep 29, 2025200K context
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Decision readingClaude Sonnet 4.5 scores 48 out of 100 and ranks #110 of 224. This profile shows 12 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #81. API pricing is $3 input and $15 output per million tokens.
Released Sep 29, 2025 — see all recent releases
Decision snapshot
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
48/100
field median 49.6#110 of 224 ranked models
Public
#110of 224
Verified —
Price
$3input / $15 output
input median $0.75blended $9
Speed
Not measured
field median 92 tok/sTime to first token not measured
Context
200Ktokens
field median 256,000Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
Strongest published evidence
Agentic ranks #81. Particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Validate before choosing
12 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Independent runtime speed has not been measured.
Source-linked · 12 displayable benchmark rows
Category score record
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #81 of 128Percentile 37thWeight 22%5 benchmarksVerified | 35.1 | 5 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank Not rankedWeight 20%2 benchmarksVerified | 65.5 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified | 22.9 | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| KnowledgeRank Not rankedWeight 12%1 benchmarkVerified | 73.5 | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%3 benchmarksMixed sources | 36.4 | 3 benchmarks | Mixed sources |
12 of 681 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow much of this is verified
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
- Agentic5/5 verified
- Coding2/2 verified
- Reasoning1/1 verified
- MultimodalNot measured
- Knowledge1/1 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
- Math2/3 verified
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 category percentile values
- Agentic37th percentile
- CodingNot eligible
- ReasoningNot eligible
- MultimodalNot eligible
- KnowledgeNot eligible
- MultilingualNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#81/128
- CodingNot ranked
- ReasoningNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- KnowledgeNot ranked
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
- MathNot ranked
Benchmark ledger
Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
Coding2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score50.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82.0% | Gap32 behind | WeightScored in Agentic | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score77.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap18.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Agentic5 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score50% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82% | Gap32 behind | Weight7% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| OSWorld-Verified | Score61.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 86.1% | Gap24.7 behind | Weight7% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| JobBench | Score27.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Wonder Full · 75.3% | Gap47.6 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| VITA-Bench | Score17.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 47.9% | Gap30.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game Benchmark | Score48.51% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97% | Gap24.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Reasoning1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for AGI v2 | Score13.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 95% | Gap81.4 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
Knowledge1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score83.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96% | Gap12.6 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
Math3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3 | Score23.860% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 93.684% | Gap69.8 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Benchmark exact |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)FrontierMath v2 Tier 4 | Score2.439% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6.1 Sol · 100.000% | Gap97.6 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Benchmark exact |
| AIME 2025American Invitational Mathematics Examination 2025 | Score87% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.2 · 100% | Gap13 behind | WeightDisplay only | Reported |
Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value
All 12 rowsWhat it costs to get this score
Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 · 48.0 score · $9 blended per million tokens
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
Published price history
This chart appears only when at least two dated first-party price records exist for the exact model. It shows rate changes, not an inferred cost trend.
2 dated first-party price records. The newest record lists $15 per million tokens.
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Base entry
Claude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingSpec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- Not published
- Context window
- 200K
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Output modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Parameters
- Not disclosed by the provider
- Availability
- Not sourced yet
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- Established
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Not documented in the pricing record
- Self-host
- Weights are not published
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 ranks #110 of 224 on the public leaderboard with a score of 47.96/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is a proprietary model with a 200K context window. No explicit reasoning mode is documented in this profile.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 sits in the Claude Sonnet 4.5 family with Claude Sonnet 4.5 Thinking. 12 of 681 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Agentic at #81. particularly useful for coding agents, browser research, and computer-use workflows.
Last updated October 17, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Questions
How does Claude Sonnet 4.5 perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 ranks #110 out of 224 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 47.96/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 12 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 good for knowledge and understanding?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for knowledge and understanding, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 good for coding and programming?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for coding and programming, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 good for mathematics?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 good for reasoning and logic?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 ranks #81 out of 128 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 35.1/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Which sibling models are related to Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 belongs to the Claude Sonnet 4.5 family. Related tracked variants include Claude Sonnet 4.5 Thinking. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
Does Claude Sonnet 4.5 have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. Claude Sonnet 4.5 currently has 13 source-displayable rows across 681 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
What is the context window size of Claude Sonnet 4.5?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has a reported context window of 200K in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.