# Claude Sonnet 5 vs o1

> Claude Sonnet 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-sonnet-5-vs-o1
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 28

## Summary

- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher in 9 categories and o1 in 1 category; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Sonnet 5 leads 66.2 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 65.6% for Claude Sonnet 5 and 14.7% for o1.
- Claude Sonnet 5 is cheaper at $2 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Claude Sonnet 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Sonnet 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 54.6 | 40.9 |
| Rank | 29 | 143 |
| Context | 1M | 200K |
| Input $/M | $2 | $15 |
| Output $/M | $10 | $60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Sonnet 5: 55.5 (#26)
- o1: 46.1 (#70)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 68.8% | 47.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1483 | 1367 |
| DeepSWE | 53.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 42.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 61.7% |
| CursorBench | 34.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1541 | — |
| SciCode | 54.3% | — |
| GSO | 37.3% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,463 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Sonnet 5: 42.8 (#18)
- o1: 24.6 (#117)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.5% | — |
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| GBAEval | 65.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1194 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 51.1% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 6,378 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Sonnet 5: 49.1 (#39)
- o1: 27.9 (#111)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60.6% | 41.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 35% | 15% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1461 | 1371 |
| DTBench | 92.5% | 74.7% |
| LMCA | 50% | 22.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.21 | 141.91 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 75.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 30.7% |
| CritPt | 16.9% | — |
| EnigmaEval | — | 5.7% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 35% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 60% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |

## Math

- Claude Sonnet 5: 66.2 (#27)
- o1: 36.1 (#175)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 65.6% | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.7% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1467 | 1388 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 77% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 9.3% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Sonnet 5: 55.6 (#47)
- o1: 41.5 (#110)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | 76.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 33.7% | 41.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1490 | 1361 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 8% |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Sonnet 5: 42.4 (#31)
- o1: 34.2 (#93)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1274 | 1168 |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| VPCT | — | 37% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.9% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1466 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |

## Multilingual

- Claude Sonnet 5: 53.8 (#55)
- o1: 48.6 (#142)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 1358 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1477 | 1394 |
| LMArena French | 1460 | 1344 |
| LMArena German | 1440 | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1422 | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | 1451 | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1437 | 1345 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Sonnet 5: 76.3 (#41)
- o1: 74.8 (#86)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1452 | 1367 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |

## Long Context

- Claude Sonnet 5: 44.8 (#55)
- o1: 50.3 (#9)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1378 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Sonnet 5: 69.2 (#25)
- o1: 55.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1442 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1416 | 1348 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1454 | 1369 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1794 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1236 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Sonnet 5 better than o1?

Claude Sonnet 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5 or o1?

Claude Sonnet 5 is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.

### Is Claude Sonnet 5 or o1 better for coding?

Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 46.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Sonnet 5 does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 5 and o1 share?

28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 5 has 51 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.