Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); Claude Sonnet 5 #29 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Claude Sonnet 5 share 18 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 41 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 18 to Claude Sonnet 5.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 41
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.5 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 4 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 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 65.32 versus 64.22. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Claude Sonnet 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 81.9 against 62.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 30.8% to 57.4%. Claude Opus 4.5 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Sonnet 5. That is roughly 2.5x on output cost alone. Claude Sonnet 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.5 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. Claude Sonnet 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.
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 Opus 4.5 | Δ | Claude Sonnet 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.562.6 | Margin→ 19.3 | Claude Sonnet 581.9 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.569.9 | Margin→ 18.4 | Claude Sonnet 588.3 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.571.7 | Margin→ 5.0 | Claude Sonnet 576.7 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.558.1 | Margin← 0.7 | Claude Sonnet 557.4 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.564.4 | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 5Not measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.557.5 | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 5Not measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.585.7 | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 5Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.569.5 | MarginNo overlap | Claude Sonnet 5Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 30.8%B 57.4%Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 26.6HLE: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 30.8%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 57.4%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 59.3%B 80.4%Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 21.1Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 59.3%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 80.4%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 68.5%B 88.3%Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 19.8CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 68.5%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 88.3%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 66.3%B 81.2%Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 14.9OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 66.3%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 81.2%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 57.1%B 63.2%Winner: Claude Sonnet 5Δ 6.1SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 57.1%; Claude Sonnet 5 scored 63.2%. Claude Sonnet 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | Claude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 output | Claude Sonnet 5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5200K | Claude Sonnet 51M | Claude Sonnet 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Sonnet 5 wins27 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.3% | 80.4% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 66.3% | 81.2% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| OSWorldSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.6% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.2% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 23.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 26.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 42.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 76.4% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 50.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.23% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 32.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 57.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1607 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 46.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 55.4% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1388 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 39.2% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 90.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 28.2% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 80.5% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Sonnet 5 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.9% | 85.2% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 84.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.1% | 63.2% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 77.5% | 78.3% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| NL2RepoSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 53.6% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| SWE MultimodalSource | — | 28.1% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 42.7% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 61.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 71.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 96.6% | — | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.8% | 57.4% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 34.7% | 53.4% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.0% | 91.1% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.9% | 39.6% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.9% | 15.3% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.7% | 38.3% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.4% | 37.3% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 43.2% | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 92.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 85.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 84.0% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 20.690% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 68.5% | 88.3% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| VideoMMMUSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 67.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 71.2% | 77.3% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1277 | 1314 | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | — | 77% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.32 to 64.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 30.8% and 57.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 58.1 versus 57.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.7 versus 71.7. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.9 versus 62.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.3 versus 69.9. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.