Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs o1
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); o1 #129 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and o1 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 14 to o1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
- 2
- o1 only
- 14
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick o1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet 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 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
o1 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 48.1 versus 47.74. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
o1's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 75.7 against 59.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 59.4% to 75.7%.
o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude 3.5 Sonnet. That is roughly 4.0x on output cost alone. o1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 3.5 Sonnet 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.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Δ | o1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude 3.5 Sonnet59.4 | Margin→ 16.3 | o175.7 |
| Math | Claude 3.5 Sonnet1.6 | Margin→ 7.7 | o19.3 |
| Coding | Claude 3.5 Sonnet49.0 | MarginNo overlap | o1Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | o192.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 59.4%B 75.7%Winner: o1Δ 16.3GPQA: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 59.4%; o1 scored 75.7%. o1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 2.069%B 9.310%Winner: o1Δ 7.2FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 2.069%; o1 scored 9.310%. o1 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | o1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | o1$15 input / $60 output | Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | o198 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | o132.29 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet200K | o1200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | o1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 62.6% | Not comparable |
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledgeo1 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | o1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 59.4% | 75.7% | o1 leads |
| MMLUSource | — | 91.8% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 23.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 74.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 7.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -10.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 69.3% | Not comparable |
Matho1 wins2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or o1?
o1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 48.1 to 47.74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 59.4% and 75.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or o1?
o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 59.4. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or o1?
o1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 9.3 versus 1.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.