Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs SWE-1.7
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 5 #29 (Estimated); SWE-1.7 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 5 and SWE-1.7 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 32 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 5; 0 to SWE-1.7.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Claude Sonnet 5 only
- 32
- SWE-1.7 only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Sonnet 5 makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; SWE-1.7 is the better fit if its strengths line up with your actual workload.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 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 and SWE-1.7 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Claude Sonnet 5 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for SWE-1.7.
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 Sonnet 5 | Δ | SWE-1.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 581.9 | Margin← 0.4 | SWE-1.781.5 |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 576.7 | MarginNo overlap | SWE-1.7Not measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 557.4 | MarginNo overlap | SWE-1.7Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 588.3 | MarginNo overlap | SWE-1.7Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 80.4%B 81.5%Winner: SWE-1.7Δ 1.1Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 5 scored 80.4%; SWE-1.7 scored 81.5%. SWE-1.7 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5 | SWE-1.7 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 5$2 input / $10 output | SWE-1.7Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | SWE-1.7Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 5Not available | SWE-1.7Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 51M | SWE-1.7256K | Claude Sonnet 5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Sonnet 5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | SWE-1.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 80.4% | 81.5% | SWE-1.7 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 81.2% | — | 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 |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | SWE-1.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 63.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 78.3% | 77.8% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 28.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 80.4% | 81.5% | SWE-1.7 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 42.7% | 42.3% | Claude Sonnet 5 leads |
| cursorBench32Source | 61.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.6% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | SWE-1.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 57.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 15.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 37.3% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or SWE-1.7?
Claude Sonnet 5 and SWE-1.7 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or SWE-1.7?
Claude Sonnet 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.9 versus 81.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.