Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Sonar
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.1 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index. Sonar costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
PerplexitySummary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads 46.1 to 20.3.
- Sonar is cheaper at $1 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $3 / $15 for Claude Sonnet 4.6.
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Sonar | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Perplexity |
| Noometry Index | 50.1 | 37.8 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2024-01-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 128K |
| Max output | 128K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $3 | $1 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $15 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.0 (#62), Sonar: 35.1 (#217)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 75.2% | — |
| DeepSWE | 29.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1521 | — |
| SciCode | 46.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 66.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 35.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,327 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 39.1 (#26), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 53.4% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 43% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 9.3% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.9% | — |
| OSWorld | 72.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 23.6% | — |
| GBAEval | 48.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1221 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 7,204 | — |
Reasoning Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.1 (#40), Sonar: 20.3 (#221)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 60.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 86.5% | — |
| CritPt | 3.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 13% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 76.3% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 46.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1485 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 16% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 37.9% |
| LMCA | 46.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 152.25 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 46.9% |
Math Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 51.9 (#41), Sonar: 31.3 (#197)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 85.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 45% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1463 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 32.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 8.3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 51.6 (#60), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 35.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1500 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 38.0 (#61), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1283 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 6.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1482 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 54.6 (#39), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1491 | — |
| LMArena French | 1465 | — |
| LMArena German | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1419 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1465 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 77.6 (#23), Sonar: 71.5 (#146)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 76.2% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 45.3 (#40), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 70.4 (#22), Sonar: 52.6 (#166)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1435 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1810 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1207 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 better than Sonar?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.1 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index. Sonar costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Sonar?
Sonar is cheaper. It lists at $1 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Claude Sonnet 4.6 lists at $3 and $15.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Sonar better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.0 versus 35.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Sonar share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.