Claude Sonnet 5
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5-20260630
This model accepts text, image, and file inputs and generates text outputs. It has a context length of 1,000,000 tokens and supports tools and reasoning. The price is $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. It is not an open-weight model.
- tool use
- structured outputs
- reasoning
At a glance
Specifications
What the API gives you
- Context window
- 1M tokens
- Max output
- 128K tokens
- Input price
- $2 / 1M tokens
- Output price
- $10 / 1M tokens
- Cache read
- $0.20 / 1M tokens
- Modalities
- text, image, file → text
- Knowledge cutoff
- —
- Released
- Jun 29, 2026
Measured evidence
Public benchmark record
- Design Arena Coding
- 1276 Elo2026-10-21
- Design Arena Full-stack Agent
- 1249 Elo2026-10-14
- Design Arena UI
- 1279 Elo2026-10-21
- Design Arena Web-app Agent
- 1245 Elo2026-10-21
- Design Arena Website
- 1274 Elo2026-10-21
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (Epoch AI)‡
- 65.6% ± 2.82026-06-30max effort, evaluated 2026-06-30
- GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI)‡
- 80.3% ± 2.82026-08-06max effort, evaluated 2026-08-06
- GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI)‡
- 90.5% ± 1.82026-07-01xhigh effort, evaluated 2026-07-01
- LiveBench Agentic Coding
- 59.4%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Coding
- 80.7%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Data Analysis
- 71.7%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Instruction Following
- 63.9%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Language
- 75.0%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Math
- 92.9%2026-10-18
- LiveBench Reasoning
- 88.7%2026-10-18
- LMArena Agent‡
- 4.22026-10-20high effort
- LMArena Agent Bash Recovery‡
- 7.42026-10-08high effort
- LMArena Agent Steerability‡
- 6.12026-10-20high effort
- LMArena Agent Task Outcome‡
- 02026-10-20high effort
- LMArena Agent Tool Hallucination‡
- 0.42026-10-20high effort
- LMArena Creative Writing‡
- 1416 Elo2026-10-20high effort
- LMArena Instruction Following‡
- 1452 Elo2026-10-20high effort
- LMArena Long Query‡
- 1462 Elo2026-10-20high effort
- LMArena Math‡
- 1467 Elo2026-10-20high effort
- LMArena Text‡
- 1461 Elo2026-10-20high effort
- LMArena Text Factuality‡
- 1452 Elo2026-10-20high effort
- LMArena Vision‡
- 1262 Elo2026-10-19high effort
- LMArena Vision Diagrams‡
- 1293 Elo2026-10-19high effort
- LMArena Vision OCR‡
- 1281 Elo2026-10-19high effort
- LMArena WebDev‡
- 1540 Elo2026-10-19high effort
- LMArena WebDev Image-to-Web‡
- 1540 Elo2026-10-19high effort
- OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch AI)‡
- 80% ± 62026-08-06max effort, evaluated 2026-08-06
- OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch AI)‡
- 94.7% ± 2.32026-07-01xhigh effort, evaluated 2026-07-01
- SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI)‡
- 33.7% ± 1.52026-08-27max effort, evaluated 2026-08-27
- SWE-rebench (2026-05-15 to 2026-07-01)‡
- 56.8% ± 0.92026-10-21tools, tasks 2026-05-15 to 2026-07-01
- Terminal-Bench (4.0)‡
- 12.4%2026-10-21Claude Code, max effort, evaluated 2026-08-27
LMArena data licensed CC-BY-4.0. Aider (Apache-2.0) and SWE-bench (MIT) are open. Design Arena uses blind human preference. ‡ Submitted scaffold plus model result. Compare the harness and effort settings, not only the model name.
Task evidence
How broad is the support?
Each status is exact to this model version and the selected task. Official release claims remain provisional.
- Best LLM for Competition MathEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 4 independent sources. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Business WritingEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Agentic CodingEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 5 independent sources. 7 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Logic & Problem SolvingEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 5 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Marketing CopyEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Chat & RoleplayEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
Show all 45 tasks
- Best LLM for Creative WritingEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Frontend & UIEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for WritingEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Roleplay & CharacterEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Math & ReasoningEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 5 independent sources. 7 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for a General AssistantEstablished evidence
100% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Autonomous AgentsEstablished evidence
94% of intended weighted task evidence across 4 independent sources. 6 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for CodingEstablished evidence
82% of intended weighted task evidence across 5 independent sources. 7 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Code CompletionEstablished evidence
79% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Debugging & Code ReviewEstablished evidence
67% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 5 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for AI AgentsEstablished evidence
64% of intended weighted task evidence across 4 independent sources. 9 of 9 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best Open-Weight LLM for Self-HostingEstablished evidence
64% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best Local LLM for CodingEstablished evidence
62% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Image UnderstandingEstablished evidence
61% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Document SummarizationEstablished evidence
60% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 5 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for SummarizationEstablished evidence
60% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 5 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Hermes AgentEstablished evidence
60% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for OpenHandsEstablished evidence
60% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for GooseEstablished evidence
60% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for OpenClawEstablished evidence
60% of intended weighted task evidence across 3 independent sources. 4 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Fast SummariesEstablished evidence
58% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best Value LLMEstablished evidence
58% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Literary TranslationEstablished evidence
50% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Everyday TranslationEstablished evidence
50% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for TranslationEstablished evidence
50% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best Cheap LLM for High VolumeEstablished evidence
40% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Cheapest Capable LLMEstablished evidence
40% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for JSON & Schema OutputEstablished evidence
35% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Structured Data ExtractionEstablished evidence
35% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 3 of 4 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Grounded RAGEstablished evidence
29% of intended weighted task evidence across 2 independent sources. 5 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for OCR & DocumentsProvisional evidence
65% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 3 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Charts & DiagramsProvisional evidence
65% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 3 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Vision & DocumentsProvisional evidence
60% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 4 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Document ParsingProvisional evidence
58% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Structured-output eval or VLMEvalKit tasks. 3 of 5 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Massive ContextProvisional evidence
47% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from LongBench v2. 2 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for RAG & Long ContextProvisional evidence
39% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from FACTS Grounding or LMArena Search. 5 of 6 configured evaluation feeds currently have results. Official release evidence is also tracked provisionally.
- Best LLM for Tool & Function CallingProvisional evidence
38% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Berkeley Function Calling or LMArena Search. 6 of 7 configured evaluation feeds currently have results. Official release evidence is also tracked provisionally.
- Best LLM for High-Volume ExtractionProvisional evidence
21% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Route reliability or Structured-output eval. 1 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results.
- Best LLM for Computer & Browser UseProvisional evidence
17% of intended weighted task evidence across 1 independent source; broader independent confirmation is still missing from Berkeley Function Calling or OSWorld Verified. 3 of 3 configured evaluation feeds currently have results. Official release evidence is also tracked provisionally.
Official release evidence · provisional
What the launch material actually says
Verbatim claims from the model provider. These help on launch day but do not count as independent confirmation.
“It's a substantial improvement over its predecessor, Sonnet 4.6, on important aspects of agentic performance like reasoning, tool use, coding, and knowledge work”
Anthropic · Introducing Claude Sonnet 5 \ Anthropic“Claude Sonnet 5 gets more done with less. Same output quality, fewer steps to get there.”
Anthropic · Introducing Claude Sonnet 5 \ Anthropic“Sonnet 5 narrows the gap: its performance is close to that of Opus 4.8, but at lower prices.”
Anthropic · Introducing Claude Sonnet 5 \ Anthropic“Claude Sonnet 5 gives our agents a strong execution layer for multi-step software engineering work. It handles sustained coding, tool use, and debugging well across messy technical contexts”
Anthropic · Introducing Claude Sonnet 5 \ Anthropic
Recommendation coverage
Where this model appears
Not currently included in a published recommendation. The task evidence panel above says exactly what is confirmed and what is still missing.
Catalog data via OpenRouter and models.dev. Last checked within the past 6 hours.