Capability
64.7/100
field median 59.1
#47 of 230 ranked models
Superseded.Anthropic has newer models in this line:Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Released February 2026 — see all recent releases
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores 64.7 out of 100 and ranks #47 of 230. This profile shows 20 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Knowledge at #20. API pricing is $3 input and $15 output per million tokens.
Data as of September 2, 2026 · How the score is built
Strongest published evidence
Knowledge ranks #20. Particularly effective for knowledge-intensive tasks like research, analysis, and factual Q&A.
Validate before choosing
20 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Agentic is its lowest eligible category at #73.
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.
Price
$3input / $15 output
input median $1
blended $9
Speed
44tok/s
field median 90 tok/s
First token 2.18 s
Context
200Ktokens
field median 256,000
Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
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 4.6 category percentile values
- Agentic49th percentile
- Coding71st percentile
- ReasoningNot eligible
- Knowledge66th percentile
- MathNot eligible
- MultilingualNot eligible
- MultimodalNot eligible
- Instruction followingNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#73/143
- Coding#43/148
- ReasoningNot ranked
- Knowledge#20/57
- MathNot ranked
- MultilingualNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Inst. FollowingNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible
What 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.
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Current modelClaude Sonnet 4.6 · 64.7 score · $9 blended per million tokens
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
How 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.
- Agentic7/7 verified
- Coding6/6 verified
- ReasoningNot measured
- Knowledge2/4 verified
- Math2/2 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Multimodal1/1 verified
- Inst. FollowingNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured
Spec 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
- Superseded
- 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
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 #73 of 143Percentile 49thWeight 22%7 benchmarksVerified | 48.9 | #73 of 143 | 49th | 22% | 7 benchmarks | Verified |
| CodingRank #43 of 148Percentile 71stWeight 20%6 benchmarksVerified | 58.7 | #43 of 148 | 71st | 20% | 6 benchmarks | Verified |
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 17% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| KnowledgeRank #20 of 57Percentile 66thWeight 12%4 benchmarksMixed sources | 76.0 | #20 of 57 | 66th | 12% | 4 benchmarks | Mixed sources |
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified | 49.4 | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 2 benchmarks | Verified |
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 7% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
| MultimodalRank Not rankedWeight 12%1 benchmarkVerified | 46.7 | Not ranked | Not available | 12% | 1 benchmark | Verified |
| Inst. FollowingWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | Not ranked | Not available | 5% | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
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.
Coding6 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-Rebench | Score60.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.6 · 65.3% | Gap4.6 behind | WeightWeighted 20% | Benchmark exact |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score79.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap16.4 behind | WeightWeighted 16% | Provider exact |
| React Native Evals | Score80.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Composer 2 · 96.1% | Gap15.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Vibe Code BenchVibe Code Bench v1.1 | Score51.48% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.7 · 71.00% | Gap19.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| cursorBench31 | Score48.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5 · 70.6% | Gap21.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| FrontierCode 1.1 Main | Score24.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5 · 53.5% | Gap29.2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Agentic7 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score59.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9% | Gap32.8 behind | WeightWeighted 38% | Provider exact |
| OSWorld-Verified | Score72.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 86.1% | Gap14 behind | WeightWeighted 34% | Benchmark exact |
| Claw-Eval | Score67.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4% | Gap13.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| CyberGym | Score65.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Fugu Cyber · 86.9% | Gap21.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game Benchmark | Score62.92% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97% | Gap10 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| OSWorld 2.0 | Score8.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 70.6% | Gap62.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
| JobBench | Score36.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.3 · 64.9% | Gap28 behind | WeightDisplay only | Benchmark exact |
Knowledge4 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score49% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65% | Gap16 behind | WeightWeighted 45% | Provider exact |
| MMLU-ProMassive Multitask Language Understanding Professional | Score79.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 89.6% | Gap10.4 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Secondary exact |
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score89.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 95.5% | Gap5.6 behind | WeightWeighted 7% | Provider exact |
| SuperGPQASuperGPQA: Scaling LLM Evaluation Across 285 Graduate Disciplines | Score95% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) · 73.9% | Gap21.1 behind | WeightWeighted 7% | Secondary exact |
Math2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3 | Score32.400% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 89.000% | Gap56.6 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Benchmark exact |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)FrontierMath v2 Tier 4 | Score8.300% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 83.000% | Gap74.7 behind | WeightWeighted 10% | Benchmark exact |
Multimodal1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivCharXiv Reasoning | Score77.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5% | Gap16.1 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
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. A successor's displayed score stays at least 0.1 points above its predecessor; raw benchmark rows do not move. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
February 2026 · you are here
Claude Sonnet 4.6Score 64.7 · $3 / $15
Jun 30, 2026
Claude Sonnet 5Score 64.9 · $2 / $10
Base entry
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 4.6 ranks #47 of 230 on the public leaderboard with a score of 64.65/100. Its source-verified position is #31 of 105.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is a proprietary model with a 200K context window. No explicit reasoning mode is documented in this profile.
20 of 416 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Knowledge at #20, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #73. particularly effective for knowledge-intensive tasks like research, analysis, and factual Q&A.
Radar
Full release historyClaude Sonnet 4.6 release history
Claude 4.6 released
Anthropic · Model release
Source confirmed
Radar confirmed these at the source. Already tracking Claude Sonnet 4.6? See the free Radar Brief for what changes next.
Frequently asked questions
How does Claude Sonnet 4.6 perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 ranks #47 out of 230 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 64.65/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 20 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 good for knowledge and understanding?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 ranks #20 out of 57 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 76/100. 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.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 good for coding and programming?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 ranks #43 out of 148 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 58.7/100. 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.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 good for mathematics?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 4.6 good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 ranks #73 out of 143 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 48.9/100. 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.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 good for multimodal and grounded tasks?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for multimodal and grounded tasks, 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.
Does Claude Sonnet 4.6 have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. Claude Sonnet 4.6 currently has 33 source-displayable rows across 416 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 4.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 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.
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.6 with every tracked model409 comparisons
Last updated September 2, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Watch Claude Sonnet 4.6 in the weekly brief
Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.