Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
Full profiles: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) and Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Anthropic): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 14 sources
As of 14 Nov 2026, Claude Sonnet 5.5 is ahead of Claude Sonnet 4.6 on quality (64.7 vs 58.3 on the BenchLeader Index), and Claude Sonnet 5.5 is 1.5× cheaper at $4.00 vs $6.00 per 1M tokens blended. Choose Sonnet 4.6 for knowledge (60 vs 57) and fast first answers (0.7 s vs 265.8 s); choose Sonnet 5.5 for agents & tools (71 vs 51), coding (72 vs 55), and maths (71 vs 63), where it also streams 3×+ faster.
Key facts (as of 14 Nov 2026)
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores 58.3 on the BenchLeader Index and Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores 64.7 (BenchLeader, 14 Nov 2026).
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 costs $6.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 14 Nov 2026).
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $4.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 14 Nov 2026).
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 streams 3×+ faster than Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 14 Nov 2026).
- Of the 4 benchmarks both models have, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 4 (BenchLeader, 14 Nov 2026).
Claude Sonnet 4.6 benchmarks 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 case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 72 vs 55 category score | High |
| Agents & tool use | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 71 vs 51 category score; Terminal-Bench 63.9% vs 53.4% | High |
| Maths | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 71 vs 63 category score; OTIS Mock AIME 100.0% vs 85.8% | High |
| Reasoning | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 68 vs 64 category score; GPQA Diamond 95.6% vs 87.4% | Medium |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 60 vs 57 category score | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Claude Sonnet 4.6 has an Arena rating (61 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | $4.00 vs $6.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.160 vs $0.240 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 0.7 s (Claude Sonnet 4.6) vs 265.8 s (Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max)) to the first answer token | – |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 64.7 vs 58.3.
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 is stronger in knowledge.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, maths, reasoning.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) is 1.5× cheaper ($4.00 vs $6.00 per 1M blended).
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) streams 3.1× faster (138 vs 44 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Released | 17 Feb 2026 | 28 Sep 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Compared at | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $3.00 / $15.00 / $0.300 | $2.00 / $10.00 / $0.100 |
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.
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 63.9 | 67.7 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 |
| Coding | 55.2 | 71.5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 |
| Agents & tools | 51.3 | 70.6 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 |
| Maths | 63.1 | 71.3 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 |
| Knowledge | 59.8 | 57.4 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
| Human preference | 60.5 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 62.4 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | – | 66.0 | not comparable |
On one chart
Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.
Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Instruction following, Long context, Multimodal, Human preference.
Model, click to add or removeIndex
Where sources disagree
Across the 4 benchmarks both have, Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads 0, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 4. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Sonnet 5.5 ahead.
| Overall index | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 58.3 | 64.7 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 |
| Arena Text | 1472 | 1473† | Claude Sonnet 5.5 |
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. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.
| Measure | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $6.00 | $4.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $3.00 / $15.00 | $2.00 / $10.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.300 | $0.100 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0057 | $0.0038 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.045 | $0.030 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.041 | $0.027 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.240 | $0.160 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0090 | $0.0060 |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | $0.118 | $0.074 |
| Cost per benchmark task (AA Index) | – | $10.02 |
| Output tokens per task (AA Index) | – | 285k |
| Of which reasoning | – | 206k |
| Time per task (AA Index) | – | 35 min |
| Output speed | 44 tok/s | 138 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 0.7 s | 265.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | – | 524.0 s |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores 58.3 and takes 1 s to its first answer token; Claude Sonnet 4.6 (max) scores 54.0 in 123 s, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (high) scores 50.3 in 1 s. Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) scores 64.7 and takes 266 s to its first answer token; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (xhigh) scores 62.5 in 28 s, Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high) scores 57.9 in 11 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
160 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.
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 58.3 | 64.7 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 51.3 | 70.6 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 55.2 | 71.5 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 60.5 | – |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 59.8 | 57.4 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 63.1 | 71.3 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 62.4 | – |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 63.9 | 67.7 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | – | 66.0 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $6.00 | $4.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 44 tok/s | 138 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 0.7 s | 265.8 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 87.4% | 95.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | Scale AI / CAIS | – | 46.1%† |
| SimpleBench | SimpleBench | – | 75.9%† |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1503 | 1499† |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 91.6%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 84.8%† | 91.6% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 87.5%† | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 33.6%† | 55.0% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 53.3% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | 85.6% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 86.0%† | 96.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 58.3%† | 83.9%† |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | – | 72.4%† |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 3.1%† | 31.4% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 59.0% |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | – | 49.1%† |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 23.0%† | 59.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 14.0% | 65.0% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 46.5%† | 68.3% |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 89.9%† | 97.3% |
| ForecastBench | ForecastBench | 64.0% | – |
| Coding | |||
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 75.2% | – |
| SciCode | SciCode | 46.8%† | 61.0% |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | 66.1%† | – |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 24.3% | 52.1%† |
Show all 160 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1528 | 1517† |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1522 | 1772† |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 77.2%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 79.3%† | 91.4% |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 50.1%† | 61.0% |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | 82.1% | – |
| IOI | Vals AI | – | 83.1%† |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | 77.4% | – |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 39.9% | 69.8%† |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 86.9%† |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 0.5% | 6.5%† |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | – | 58.3%† |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 51.5% | 92.4%† |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | Scale AI SEAL | 31.2% | – |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoring | Scale AI SEAL | 32.2% | – |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | Scale AI SEAL | 31.8% | – |
| MirrorCode | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 97.8% |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 29.9%† | – |
| CursorBench | Cursor | – | 55.5% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 1327.3† | 1819.1† |
| FrontierSWE | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 61.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 3.0%† | 63.6% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 71.2%† | – |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | – | 75.9%† |
| GameBench 2 Overall | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 60.3† |
| GameBench 2 by reasoning setting | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 91.2† |
| Design Arena Website | Design Arena | 1277 | 1309† |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 45.8% |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 41.7% |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 53.4% | 63.9% |
| OSWorld-Verified 2.0 | OSWorld | 8.3%† | – |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | 43.0%† | 75.5% |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | 16 |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | – | 63.4%† |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | – | 89.3%† |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | 42.6%† | 56.3% |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | 53.0%† | – |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 75.7%† | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | 57.3% | 83.2%† |
| MCP Atlas | Scale AI SEAL | 69.5% | – |
| GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised score | Artificial Analysis | – | 66.9% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 1838 |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 34.4%† | – |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 39.8%† | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 20.0%† | 57.5% |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 28.0%† | – |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | – | 59.6%† |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 51.0% | 58.1%† |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | – | 67.3%† |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 10.4%† |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | 5.0% | 2.9%† |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 38.5% | 48.1%† |
| SkillsBench | Vals AI | 49.0% | – |
| SREBench | Vals AI | – | 30.1%† |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 25.8% | 42.0%† |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 59.5% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 64.1%† |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | – | 47.1%† |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | 1201 | – |
| DeepResearch Bench | DeepResearch Bench | 54.9%† | – |
| ExploitBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 23.6% | – |
| GBAEval | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 48.8% | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 7204.1 | 11165.3† |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 20.1%† | 71.8% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 15.8%† | 25.8% |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | – | 2.8% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1062† | 1816 |
| GDPx | GDPx by SemiAnalysis | – | 8.2% |
| Design Arena Agentic | Design Arena | 1181 | 1287† |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 53.3% |
| FACTS Search | – | 86.8%† | |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 88.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 80.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 85.8% | 100.0% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 45.0%† | 100.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 87.0%† | 96.1% |
| AIME (Vals) | Vals AI | 92.3% | – |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1461 | 1486† |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 32.8%† | 46.5% |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 59.5%† |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | – | 88.0%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 78.0%† | 59.5% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 30.5 |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | 87.3% | – |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | 82.1% | – |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | 65.3% | – |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | 77.1% | – |
| MedQA | Vals AI | 92.1% | – |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | – | 81.1%† |
| CaseLaw v2 | Vals AI | 64.0% | – |
| ClaimBench | Vals AI | – | 100.0%† |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 60.1% | 75.7%† |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 75.9%† |
| MedCode | Vals AI | – | 52.9%† |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | – | 91.1%† |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 62.5% | 67.2%† |
| DrugDiscoveryBench | Scale AI SEAL | 31.3%† | – |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 18.0%† | 31.4% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | – | 51.5% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | – | 56.7% |
| Global-MMLU-Lite (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 90.5%† | – |
| HealthBench Professional (AA) | OpenAI | – | 63.0% |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | 76.1%† | 78.0% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 63.2%† | 56.8% |
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | 56.6%† | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1475 | 1482† |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1472 | 1473† |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | 1197 | – |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1449 | 1464† |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1480 | 1469† |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1492 | 1491† |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1283 | 1284† |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | – | 81.3%† |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | 73.3%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | 83.6% | – |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | 67.7% | – |
| SAGE | Vals AI | – | 88.0%† |
| GeoBench | GeoBench | 73.0% | – |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 6.7% | 39.3%† |
| Code2Video-AA | Artificial Analysis | – | 1443 |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | – | 1204 |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 80.0%† | 82.7% |
| Arena Document | Arena (LMArena) | 1478 | – |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 7.8%† | 41.7% |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 152.9 | 166.6† |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | – | 77.0%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 73.0%† | 75.7% |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | – | 54.5 |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 30.1† | 56 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | 293.6† | 350.5 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | – | 70.8† |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | – | 64.5%† |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | – | 59.1%† |
| Vals Multimodal Index | Vals AI | 60.6% | – |
| Vals Router Index | Vals AI | – | 69.0%† |
Data as of 2026-11-14. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261110-2acac640a228 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261110-2acac640a228/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.
What changed
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max): BenchLeader Index 65.1 → 64.6.
- Claude Sonnet 4.6: 1 new result (GeoBench).
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max): 1 new result (MirrorCode).
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max): 2 score revisions.
- Claude Sonnet 4.6: 1 new result (Arena Search).
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max): 1 new result (MirrorCode).
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max): 5 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 3 score revisions; cost per task moved from $5.46/M to $10.02/M (83% up).
Related comparisons
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Muse Spark 1.3
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5: questions
- Is Claude Sonnet 5.5 better than Claude Sonnet 4.6?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 64.7 vs 58.3. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max) is ahead overall as of 14 Nov 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper today: $4.00 against $6.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Claude Sonnet 5.5 better for coding?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher in coding (72 vs 55 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is faster, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 streams 3×+ faster (138 vs 44 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
- Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Claude Sonnet 5.5 better for agents and tool use?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher in agentic tasks (71 vs 51 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Terminal-Bench, the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 53.4% for Claude Sonnet 4.6 against 63.9% for Claude Sonnet 5.5.
More questions (4)
- Which is better for long documents?
- Both accept 1,000,000 tokens of context.
- Which has lower latency?
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 answers first: 0.7 s against 265.8 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.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5?
- Across the 4 benchmarks both have, Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads 0, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 4. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Sonnet 5.5 ahead.
- When was Claude Sonnet 5.5 released?
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 was released on 28 Sep 2026.