BenchLeader

Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Sonnet 5

Full profiles: Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic) and Claude Sonnet 5 (Anthropic): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 11 sources

As of 26 Oct 2026, Claude Opus 5 (max) leads on quality (68.8 vs 60.1 on the BenchLeader Index), but Claude Sonnet 5 (high) costs 2.5× less, so it is the better buy unless you need the extra quality. Claude Opus 5 leads in every category we measure both in.

Which to pick for…

The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.

Use casePickWhyConfidence
CodingClaude Opus 570 vs 61 category score; Arena WebDev 1691 vs 1541High
Agents & tool useClaude Opus 564 vs 57 category score; Arena Agent 8.2 vs 3.8High
MathsClaude Opus 571 vs 65 category score; Arena Maths 1517 vs 1473Medium
ReasoningClaude Opus 574 vs 66 category score; CritPt 29.1% vs 15.1%High
KnowledgeClaude Opus 572 vs 60 category score; AA-Omniscience 37.1 vs -3.7High
Long documentsClaude Opus 565 vs 63 category score; AA-LCR 79.3% vs 76.7%Medium
Images and other mediaClaude Opus 568 vs 61 category scoreMedium
Chat quality (human preference)Claude Opus 569 vs 65 on Arena votesMedium
Lowest costClaude Sonnet 5$4.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.160 vs $0.400–
Fastest first answerClaude Sonnet 514.1 s (Claude Sonnet 5 (high)) vs 68.7 s (Claude Opus 5 (max)) to the first answer token–
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Claude Opus 5 (max) leads on quality: 68.8 vs 60.1.
  • Claude Opus 5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
  • Claude Sonnet 5 (high) is 2.5× cheaper ($4.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).

At a glance

SpecClaude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 5
DeveloperAnthropicAnthropic
Released24 Jul 202630 Jun 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,000,000
Compared atClaude Opus 5 (max)Claude Sonnet 5 (high)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$5.00 / $25.00 / $0.500$2.00 / $10.00 / $0.200

Category by category

Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.

CategoryClaude Opus 5 (max)Claude Sonnet 5 (high)Leader
Reasoning74.165.7Claude Opus 5
Coding70.260.7Claude Opus 5
Agents & tools64.356.7Claude Opus 5
Maths70.665.4Claude Opus 5
Knowledge71.659.8Claude Opus 5
Human preference68.564.9Claude Opus 5
Multimodal67.961.0Claude Opus 5
Long context64.763.3Claude Opus 5
Composite86.364.9Claude Opus 5

Where sources disagree

Across the 25 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 5 leads 25, Claude Sonnet 5 leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 5 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Opus 5 (max)Claude Sonnet 5 (high)Leader
BenchLeader Index68.860.1Claude Opus 5
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.250.831.7Claude Opus 5
Arena Text14911462Claude Opus 5

Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).

Price, speed and latency

List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.

MeasureClaude Opus 5 (max)Claude Sonnet 5 (high)
Blended price per 1M tokens$10.00$4.00
Input / output per 1M$5.00 / $25.00$2.00 / $10.00
Cached input per 1M$0.500$0.200
Price per task: chat reply$0.0095$0.0038
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.075$0.030
Price per task: code edit$0.068$0.027
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.400$0.160
Price per task: structured extraction$0.015$0.0060
Cost to run a full benchmark suite$5.86$1.79
Output speed51 tok/s65 tok/s
Time to first answer68.7 s14.1 s
Time to a complete answer78.4 s21.8 s

Per token is not per task: on Artificial Analysis' full suite Claude Opus 5 (max) cost $5.86 and Claude Sonnet 5 (high) $1.79, because Claude Opus 5 (max) used about 1.3× as many tokens for the same work, which a per-token price hides.

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Opus 5 (max) scores 68.8 and takes 69 s to its first answer token; Claude Opus 5 (high) scores 67.9 in 17 s, Claude Opus 5 (xhigh) scores 67.4 in 31 s. Claude Sonnet 5 (high) scores 60.1 and takes 14 s to its first answer token; Claude Sonnet 5 (xhigh) scores 59.0 in 21 s, Claude Sonnet 5 (max) scores 58.4 in 203 s. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.

Every benchmark

123 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.

MetricPublisherClaude Opus 5 (max)Claude Sonnet 5 (high)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader68.860.1
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader64.356.7
Coding scoreBenchLeader70.260.7
Composite scoreBenchLeader86.364.9
Human preference scoreBenchLeader68.564.9
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader71.659.8
Long context scoreBenchLeader64.763.3
Maths scoreBenchLeader70.665.4
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader67.961.0
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader74.165.7
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$10.00$4.00
Output speedBenchLeader51 tok/s65 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader68.7 s14.1 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub93.9%90.5%†
SimpleBenchSimpleBench80.6%†60.6%†
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)15151490
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench91.2%88.7%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis93.2%91.1%†
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis54.9%35.7%
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI93.4%†88.9%†
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize90.4%–
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize30.2%†–
CritPtArtificial Analysis29.1%15.1%
MysteryMechanismVals AI37.4%†–
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub43.0%34.0%†
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub59.0%16.0%†
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub63.3%50.0%
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub97.6%84.5%
ForecastBenchForecastBench66.5%63.4%†
BTF-3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub12.0%†14.2%†
Coding
SciCodeSciCode56.4%54.3%
WeirdMLWeirdML91.8%68.8%
FrontierCodeCognition53.4%42.7%†
GSO-BenchGSO-Bench–37.3%†
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)15281520
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)16911541
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench81.5%80.7%†
Show all 123 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Opus 5 (max)Claude Sonnet 5 (high)
Coding
LiveCodeBenchVals AI89.0%†82.4%†
IOIVals AI84.3%†45.0%†
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI97.0%†79.6%†
Code MigrationVals AI57.5%†44.4%†
ProgramBenchVals AI3.0%†0.0%†
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI28.5%†13.8%†
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI88.4%†81.3%†
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL63.2%†–
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL62.2%†–
Surface Evolver BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–60.0%†
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub73.7%48.2%
CursorBenchCursor46.6%30.8%
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub2164.6†1463.1
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub52.0%–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis49.0%5.0%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis89.1%80.5%†
Startrise FrontendStartrise82.3%†66.6%†
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench51.8%12.4%†
OSWorld-Verified 2.0OSWorld31.4%–
APEX-AgentsMercor65.8%54.5%†
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)8.23.8
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench65.2%59.4%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI84.6%†74.5%†
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL85.8%†–
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL57.0%†–
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench48.7%–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis42.1%37.3%†
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis53.8%46.3%†
CUA-benchVals AI9.0%–
CyberBenchVals AI65.4%†61.9%†
Finance Agent v2Vals AI58.6%†53.9%†
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI6.7%†5.0%†
Legal Research BenchVals AI55.3%†41.8%†
SkillsBenchVals AI60.4%†46.5%†
SREBenchVals AI12.2%†0.4%†
Tax Agent BenchVals AI45.5%†29.4%†
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI53.5%†10.6%†
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI27.1%†5.7%†
Time Horizon Index: KSPVals AI18.8%†–
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)1214†–
BALROGBALROG63.4%–
PostTrainBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub35.0%†–
GBAEvalEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub79.6%†65.3%†
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs11181.9†6377.7†
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis56.6%32.1%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis21.6%9.4%
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis47.5%43.9%†
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis16571357†
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis28.6%–
DeepSec-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis25.9%–
FACTS SearchGoogle85.3%†–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub85.6%65.6%†
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub73.2%29.3%†
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub98.9%94.7%†
ProofBenchVals AI99.0%77.0%†
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench95.7%92.9%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)15171473
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub59.9%32.9%†
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench74.5%71.7%†
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis37.1-3.7
MMLU-ProVals AI91.6%†87.5%†
LegalBenchVals AI87.0%†83.9%†
CorpFinVals AI73.2%†67.0%†
TaxEvalVals AI75.1%†75.6%†
BioMysteryBenchVals AI79.3%†–
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI73.6%†66.3%†
MedCodeVals AI63.6%†47.5%†
MedScribeVals AI91.0%†76.0%†
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI76.9%†66.0%†
DrugDiscoveryBenchScale AI SEAL53.7%50.0%†
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub45.7%–
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub24.0%–
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis60.9%37.4%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis39.2%34.3%
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench88.7%75.0%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench63.8%63.9%†
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)14951466
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)14911462
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1360†1225†
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)14741435
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)14871473
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)15031481
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1320†1273
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis84.7%77.3%†
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI89.9%†83.0%†
MortgageTaxVals AI72.1%†70.0%†
SAGEVals AI49.4%†48.9%†
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub30.4%†24.9%†
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis79.3%76.7%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)1490†1476
MLCRArtificial Analysis11.1%4.4%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub163.9†156.9†
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench80.1%76.0%†
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis50.831.7
Vals RSI IndexVals AI33.0%–
Vals Science IndexVals AI47.9%†–
Vals Multimodal IndexVals AI73.9%†68.8%†
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL16.8%†–

Data as of 2026-10-26. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Claude Opus 5 (max): 1 new result (Vals RSI Index).
  • Claude Opus 5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Claude Sonnet 5 (high): 1 new result (MLCR).
  • Claude Opus 5 (max): 1 new result (ForecastBench); 1 score revision.
  • Claude Sonnet 5 (high): 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 5 (max): BenchLeader Index 68.3 → 68.9.
  • Claude Opus 5 (max): 4 new results (GDPval-AA v2.1, AA-Omniscience: accuracy, AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination…).
  • Claude Sonnet 5 (high): 2 new results (AutomationBench, GDP.pdf (AA)).
  • Claude Opus 5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 5 (max): 2 score revisions.

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Sonnet 5: questions

Is Claude Opus 5 better than Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Opus 5 (max) leads on quality: 68.8 vs 60.1. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 5 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-26, but check the category scores for your use.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 5, and will that change?
Claude Sonnet 5 is cheaper today: $4.00 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Claude Sonnet 5 for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher in coding (70 vs 61 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1691 for Claude Opus 5 against 1541 for Claude Sonnet 5.
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Claude Sonnet 5 for agents and tool use?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher in agentic tasks (64 vs 57 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena Agent, the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 8.2 for Claude Opus 5 against 3.8 for Claude Sonnet 5.
Which is better for long documents?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on long-context benchmarks (65 vs 63). Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
Which has lower latency?
Claude Sonnet 5 (high) answers first: 14.1 s against 68.7 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 5?
Claude Sonnet 5 streams faster: 65 against 51 output tokens per second.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Sonnet 5?
Across the 25 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 5 leads 25, Claude Sonnet 5 leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 5 ahead.
When was Claude Opus 5 released?
Claude Opus 5 was released on 24 Jul 2026.