Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Sonar
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index. Sonar costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
PerplexitySummary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 21.1.
- Sonar is cheaper at $1 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
- Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Sonar | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Perplexity |
| Noometry Index | 58.2 | 38.5 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | 2024-01-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 128K |
| Max output | 128K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $1 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 68 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Sonar: 35.7 (#221)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1547 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 35.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1536 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Sonar: 21.1 (#227)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 46.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 91.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 37.9% |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.24 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 46.9% |
Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Sonar: 33.7 (#200)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1489 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | — |
| LMArena French | 1513 | — |
| LMArena German | 1502 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1510 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Sonar: 71.4 (#150)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 76.2% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Sonar: 52.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1503 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1505 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1513 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Sonar?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index. Sonar costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Sonar?
Sonar is cheaper. It lists at $1 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Sonar better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 35.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Sonar share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.