Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.32/100
Margin
16.6pts
winning →
81.96/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 5 #29 (Estimated); GPT-5.6 Sol #3 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol share 24 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 5; 22 to GPT-5.6 Sol.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
24
Claude Sonnet 5 only
12
GPT-5.6 Sol only
22
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick GPT-5.6 Sol if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 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

GPT-5.6 Sol is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 81.96 to 65.32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GPT-5.6 Sol's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 94.6 against 57.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 80.4% to 91.9%. Claude Sonnet 5 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

GPT-5.6 Sol is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Sonnet 5. That is roughly 3.0x on output cost alone.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol
CategoryClaude Sonnet 5ΔGPT-5.6 Sol
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 557.4Margin→ 37.2GPT-5.6 Sol94.6
CodingClaude Sonnet 576.7Margin← 12.1GPT-5.6 Sol64.6
AgenticClaude Sonnet 581.9Margin→ 10.1GPT-5.6 Sol92.0
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 588.3Margin← 5.3GPT-5.6 Sol83.0
MathClaude Sonnet 5Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.6 Sol87.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Sonnet 5B · GPT-5.6 Sol

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 80.4%B 91.9%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 11.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 80.4%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 91.9%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

  2. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.7%B 92.2%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 7.5
    BrowseComp: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 84.7%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 92.2%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 63.2%B 64.6%
    Winner: GPT-5.6 SolΔ 1.4
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 63.2%; GPT-5.6 Sol scored 64.6%. GPT-5.6 Sol wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 5GPT-5.6 SolComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 outputGPT-5.6 Sol$5 input / $30 outputClaude Sonnet 5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 5Not availableGPT-5.6 SolNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 5Not availableGPT-5.6 SolNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 51MGPT-5.6 Sol1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGPT-5.6 Sol wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GPT-5.6 SolResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 80.4%91.9%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
BrowseCompSource 84.7%92.2%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
HLE w/ toolsSource 57.4%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 81.2%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 16071736GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 46.7%54.0%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GDPval-AASource 55.4%61.8%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA BriefcaseSource 13881501GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA AutomationBenchSource 39.2%51.2%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.7%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 90.1%87.2%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
AA Tau3 BankingSource 28.2%33.0%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
aaTerminalBench21Source 80.5%88%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
OSWorld 2.0Source —62.6%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —84.5%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource —33.7%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —58%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —85.1%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —56.2%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —65.9%Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GPT-5.6 SolResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 85.2%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 63.2%64.6%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
SWE MultilingualSource 78.3%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 28.1%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 80.4%91.9%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 42.7%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 61.5%67.2%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA Coding IndexSource 71.5%77.4%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.6%56.1%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
deepSweSource —72.7%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource —60.6%Not comparable
VulcanBench v3Source —87.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GPT-5.6 SolResult
AA-LCRSource 70.7%73.7%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
CritPtSource 16.9%32.3%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
ARC-AGI-3Source —7.8%Not comparable
GeneBench-ProSource —28.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeGPT-5.6 Sol wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GPT-5.6 SolResult
HLESource 57.4%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 43.2%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.4%58.9%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%94.1%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%47.2%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 15.3%21.7%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.3%58.5%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 37.3%88.8%Claude Sonnet 5 leads
GPQASource —94.6%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —94.6%Not comparable
HealthBench ProfessionalSource —60.5%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —33.1%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GPT-5.6 SolResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source —89%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —89.000%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —83.000%Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GPT-5.6 SolResult
CharXivSource 88.3%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 77%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 77.3%83.4%GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1314—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —83%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource —84.6%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5GPT-5.6 SolResult
AA-IFBenchSource —72.7%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 81.96 to 65.32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 80.4% and 91.9%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 94.6 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 Sonnet 5 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.7 versus 64.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 92 versus 81.9. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or GPT-5.6 Sol?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88.3 versus 83. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.