# Claude Sonnet 4.6

Anthropic · Proprietary · rank 45 · bench-align-v5

> Every figure below is reproduced as its upstream source published it: nothing is modelled, estimated, interpolated or converted. `Unavailable` means no source published the value — it is never a zero. Each value carries its evidence state and the date it was observed.

Page: https://modelscale.dev/models/claude-sonnet-4-6  
JSON: https://modelscale.dev/api/model/claude-sonnet-4-6

## Facts

| Field | Value | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Canonical id | `claude-sonnet-4-6` | — |
| Overall score | 63.2 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Context window | 200K tokens | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Release date | 2026-02-01 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Access type | Proprietary | — |
| Blended $/1M (75% input / 25% output) | $6.00 | Derived from the input and output rates below |

## Capability evidence

Seven axes from the ranking source. An axis the source did not score is unavailable, not zero.

| Axis | Score | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Agentic | 50.5 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Coding | 62.7 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Knowledge | 76 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Reasoning | 67.9 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Multimodal & Grounded | 54.1 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Instruction Following | 46.6 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |
| Math | 48.8 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:models |

## Runtime service evidence

Measured values with the date they were observed. Nothing is inferred from a sibling model or a provider claim. Regional or per-endpoint measurements appear only when the API supplies them; none are modelled.

| Measurement | Value | Observed | Last good | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Time to first token | 1.31 s | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-22 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:speed |
| Throughput | 44 tok/s | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-22 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:speed |

## Endpoint and price matrix

Every published price component, including cache reads and writes.

| Component | USD | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Input / 1M tokens | $3.00 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:pricing |
| Output / 1M tokens | $15.00 | Observed 2026-09-22 · source benchlm:pricing |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | Unavailable | Unavailable · source benchlm:pricing |
| Cache write / 1M tokens | Unavailable | Unavailable · source openrouter:pricing |
| Blended / 1M (75% input / 25% output) | $6.00 | Derived — from the input and output rates above; it has no source record of its own |
| Cost per successful task (LiveBench) | Unavailable | Unavailable · source livebench:table |

**Self-hosted listing.** Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 4.6 announcement says pricing remains the same as Sonnet 4.5 at $3 input / $15 output per million tokens. The rates above are a hosted price matched from another provider, not a first-party list price.

## Workload-aware monthly cost example

10 conversations per day × 8 messages × 22 active days, 1200 input and 400 output tokens per message, no cache. Derived here from the published rates above by this site's own calculator — not a figure any source published.

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Modelled monthly cost | $16.90 |
| Modelled tokens | 2.82M |

## Benchmark record

37 matched benchmark rows with their published value, unit, and provenance.

### Knowledge

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GPQA (Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A) | 89.9 | 448 questions | Graduate level | [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12022) |
| SuperGPQA (SuperGPQA: Scaling LLM Evaluation Across 285 Graduate Disciplines) | 95 | 285 disciplines | Graduate level | [SuperGPQA: Scaling LLM Evaluation Across 285 Graduate Disciplines](https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14739) |
| MMLU-Pro (Massive Multitask Language Understanding Professional) | 79.2 | Multiple subjects | Professional level | [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01574) |
| HLE (Humanity's Last Exam) | 49 | Expert-level questions | Frontier expert level | [Humanity's Last Exam](https://lastexam.ai/) |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index | 24.7 | Cross-benchmark intelligence index | Display-only external reference | [Artificial Analysis](https://artificialanalysis.ai/) |
| AA-GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond) | 79.9 | Graduate-level science questions | Graduate-level science reasoning | [Artificial Analysis GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/gpqa-diamond) |
| AA-HLE (Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam) | 13.3 | Expert-level questions | Frontier expert reasoning | [Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/hle) |
| AA-Omniscience Index (Artificial Analysis Omniscience Index) | -3.5 | Knowledge questions | Broad factual knowledge | [AA-Omniscience: Knowledge and Hallucination Benchmark](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/omniscience) |
| AA-Omniscience Accuracy (Artificial Analysis Omniscience Accuracy) | 38.6 | Knowledge questions | Broad knowledge | [Artificial Analysis model benchmarks](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-3) |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate (Artificial Analysis Omniscience Hallucination Rate) | 68.5 | Knowledge questions | Factuality | [Artificial Analysis model benchmarks](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-3) |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) (GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run) | 85.6 | Graduate-level science questions | Expert reasoning | [Vals AI GPQA Diamond, Vals AI run leaderboard](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/gpqa) |
| MMLU-Pro (Vals) (MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run) | 87.3 | Academic multiple-choice questions | Broad academic knowledge | [Vals AI MMLU-Pro, Vals AI run leaderboard](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/mmlu_pro) |

### Coding

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SWE-bench Verified (Software Engineering Benchmark Verified) | 79.6 | 500 verified issues | Professional software engineering | [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06770) |
| SWE-Rebench | 60.7 | Fresh GitHub issues (rolling window) | Professional software engineering | [SWE-Rebench: Contamination-Free Evaluation of Software Engineering Agents](https://swe-rebench.com/) |
| FrontierCode 1.1 Main | 24.3 | 100 private Main tasks (150 in Extended) | Frontier coding-agent quality | [FrontierCode leaderboard](https://cognition.com/frontiercode) |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vibe Code Bench v1.1) | 51.48 | End-to-end web application builds | End-to-end software delivery | [Vibe Code Bench: Evaluating AI Models on End-to-End Web Application Development](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/vibe-code) |
| React Native Evals | 80.6 | React Native app implementation tasks | Production mobile app engineering | [React Native Evals](https://rn-evals.vercel.app/) |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals) (LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run) | 82.1 | Competitive programming problems (easy, medium, hard) | Frontier coding | [Vals AI LiveCodeBench, Vals AI run leaderboard](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/lcb) |
| SWE-bench (Vals) (SWE-bench, Vals AI run) | 77.4 | Real repository issues by human time bucket | Frontier coding agents | [Vals AI SWE-bench, Vals AI run leaderboard](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/swebench) |

### Mathematics

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) (FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3) | 32.400 | 295 private advanced mathematics problems | From olympiad-plus to early research mathematics | [FrontierMath v2 benchmark hub](https://epoch.ai/benchmarks/frontiermath-tier-4-v2) |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) (FrontierMath v2 Tier 4) | 8.300 | 43 private extreme-difficulty mathematics problems | Research-level mathematics requiring hours or days of expert work | [FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 leaderboard](https://epoch.ai/benchmarks/frontiermath-tier-4-v2?view=graph&tab=leaderboard) |

### Reasoning

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AA-LCR (Artificial Analysis Long Context Reasoning) | 68.3 | Long-context reasoning tasks | Long-context reasoning | [Artificial Analysis model benchmarks](https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-3) |
| CritPt (Critical Physics Tasks) | 0.9 | Research-level physics questions | Research-level physics reasoning | [CritPt Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/critpt) |

### Instruction Following

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AA-IFBench (Artificial Analysis IFBench) | 41.2 | Verifiable instruction constraints | Instruction precision | [Artificial Analysis IFBench Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/ifbench) |

### Agentic

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 59.1 | Terminal-based software tasks | Professional software engineering | [Terminal-Bench 2.0](https://www.tbench.ai/) |
| Gert Labs (Gert Labs Composite Game Benchmark) | 62.92 | Novel game environments | Agentic coding and decision-making | [Gert Labs rankings](https://gertlabs.com/rankings) |
| OSWorld-Verified | 72.1 | 369 real-world computer tasks (361 when eight Google Drive tasks are excluded) | Multi-step desktop and cross-application workflows | [OSWorld](https://os-world.github.io/) |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 8.3 | 108 long-horizon computer-use workflows | Long-horizon professional workflows | [OSWorld2.0: Benchmarking Computer Use Agents on Long-Horizon Real-World Tasks](https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.29537) |
| CyberGym | 65.2 | 1,507 vulnerability analysis instances | Real-world cybersecurity | [CyberGym: Evaluating AI Agents' Real-World Cybersecurity Capabilities at Scale](https://www.cybergym.io/) |
| JobBench | 36.9 | 130 tasks across 35 occupations | Professional multi-source workflows | [JobBench: Aligning Agent Work With Human Will](https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.26329) |
| τ²-bench results (τ²-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation) | 79.5 | Airline, retail, and telecom customer-service task sets | Dual-control customer-service workflows | [τ²-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07982) |
| Claw-Eval | 67.8 | 300 tasks, 2,159 rubrics | Real-world general, multi-turn, and native multimodal agent execution | [Claw-Eval: Towards Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents](https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06132) |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) (Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run) | 57.3 | Difficult terminal tasks | Frontier agentic | [Vals AI Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run leaderboard](https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/terminal-bench-2-1) |
| ApprenticeBench (ApprenticeBench: end-to-end computer use, continual learning, and long-horizon agency on a real accounts-payable job) | 2 | 100 vendor bills processed in sequence inside a simulated construction company | Long-horizon computer use with offline and online continual learning | [ApprenticeBench: a step change in AI's job readiness](https://neocognition.io/blog/apprentice-bench/) |

### Multimodal & Grounded

| Benchmark | Value | Tasks | Difficulty | Provenance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AA-MMMU-Pro (Artificial Analysis MMMU-Pro) | 70.6 | Multimodal academic reasoning | Frontier multimodal | [Artificial Analysis MMMU-Pro Benchmark Leaderboard](https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/mmmu-pro) |
| Design Arena Website (Design Arena Website Elo) | 1296 | Website generation comparisons | Design and website generation | [OpenRouter Grok 4.3 benchmarks](https://openrouter.ai/x-ai/grok-4.3/benchmarks) |
| CharXiv (CharXiv Reasoning) | 77.4 | Scientific chart reasoning | Scientific visualization reasoning | [CharXiv: Charting Gaps in Realistic Chart Understanding in Multimodal LLMs](https://charxiv.github.io/) |

## Lifecycle and limitations log

Lifecycle events the source associates with this model.

No lifecycle event references this model. That is not evidence the model has no lifecycle plan — only that this source published none.

## What this profile does not claim

Values are reproduced exactly as their sources published them, in the units those sources declared; none are converted, interpolated, or averaged across providers. Any field marked unavailable was attempted and not returned. Last attempted fetch for this model's score: 2026-09-22 10:17 UTC.