RankingEffort benchmarks

Claude Sonnet 5 · XHigh

Compare models

140 measured results · 7 effort settings · 69 benchmark/harness combinations

Model evidence and sources →

Change model

Model

Current configurationSources

Compare with

Choose a second model and its effort to see both profiles and benchmark differences below.

Compare withModel and configuration

Capability profile

One configuration, seven capabilities

Comparison score · 0–100

AClaude Sonnet 5 · XHigh4 of 7 capabilities supported

Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.

Agentic
A37.1Supported
Hard reasoning
A50.9Supported
Coding
A57.6Supported
Human pref
Unknown
Knowledge
A17.2Supported
Multimodal
Unknown
Long context
A35.8Preliminary

Each profile belongs to the named configuration. Capability scores use a shared panel for all axes, distinct from the overall ranking panel; they are not accuracy percentages or direct head-to-head wins.

Capability score evidence

Claude Sonnet 5 · XHigh: 37.8 overall comparison score. Meets the overall evidence requirements.

5 areas measured. The available task mix affects this estimate; missing areas remain unknown.

Shared-result disagreement. This aggregate order conflicts with matched benchmark results against 1 other configurations. Different test coverage and opponents affect the fit. Inspect published results before treating the rank as conclusive.

Which sources carry the weight?

Cognition · 26.6% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
LiveBench · 23.2% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Epoch AI · 18.8% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Artificial Analysis · 17.8% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider
Datacurve · 13.7% direct comparison weight · independent of the model provider

Which benchmark families carry the weight?

FrontierCode · 26.6% direct comparison weight
DeepSWE · 13.7% direct comparison weight
GPQA · 7.1% direct comparison weight
Aime · 7.0% direct comparison weight
simpleqa · 4.6% direct comparison weight
Other families (17) · 41.0% direct comparison weight

These shares describe direct comparison weight, not fractions of the final score or confidence. Source balancing does not give every family equal weight or remove correlations between overlapping sources.

DeepSWE v1.1 review: Epoch AI reported grading errors in at least 23 of 113 tasks. These published results remain included. Review their limitations in Epoch's review when interpreting this evidence.

How sensitive is this score?

The audit removes one source at a time and refits against the same overall reference panel. These published results use the matching dataset audited 2026-10-20.

Both ranks use the same surviving configurations for each removal. The cohort starts with 444 configurations supported in the original audit, including separate effort settings. These are diagnostic positions, not the default leaderboard ranks. Eligibility is not rechecked after removal.

What changes when a source is removed?
Removed source	Rank before → after	Rank movement	Cohort remaining / lost support	Score after (change)
Artificial Analysis	84 → 82	Up 2	203 remaining / 241 lost	38.5 (+0.7 points)
ARC Prize	92 → 96	Down 4	444 remaining / 0 lost	40.6 (+2.8 points)
Datacurve	92 → 91	Up 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	35.8 (-2.0 points)
LiveCodeBench	92 → 92	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	37.8 (-0.0 points)
Scale	92 → 92	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	39.7 (+1.9 points)
Terminal-Bench	92 → 93	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	37.6 (-0.1 points)
Cognition	92 → 104	Down 12	444 remaining / 0 lost	34.2 (-3.6 points)
LiveBench	92 → 95	Down 3	443 remaining / 1 lost	36.8 (-1.0 points)
SWE-rebench	92 → 94	Down 2	444 remaining / 0 lost	37.1 (-0.7 points)
Epoch AI	91 → 85	Up 6	431 remaining / 13 lost	42.0 (+4.2 points)
Vals AI	92 → 95	Down 3	443 remaining / 1 lost	36.4 (-1.4 points)
Provider reports · Anthropic	92 → 92	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	37.8 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · Moonshot AI	92 → 92	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	37.4 (-0.4 points)
Provider reports · Meta	92 → 92	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	37.8 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · Mistral	92 → 92	No movement	444 remaining / 0 lost	37.8 (+0.0 points)
Provider reports · OpenAI	92 → 93	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	37.9 (+0.1 points)
All provider reports	92 → 93	Down 1	444 remaining / 0 lost	37.4 (-0.4 points)

Lost support means a configuration no longer has a comparison path to the complete reference panel. Its rank is unavailable. A surviving path alone does not establish leaderboard eligibility.

Overlapping sources may remain correlated even with source balancing. Leave-one-source-out movement is a sensitivity diagnostic, not a spread of source-specific ranks or a confidence measure. Scoring methodology · Dated configuration audit

Every benchmark family

Removed evidence	Recomputed score	Change
frontiercode	34.2	-3.6
simpleqa	40.7	+2.9
arc-agi	39.8	+2.0
deepswe	35.8	-1.9
multi-swe-bench	35.9	-1.9
livebench-instructions	39.4	+1.6
livebench-language	39.1	+1.4
mmmu-pro	39.0	+1.2
livebench-coding	36.7	-1.1
livebench-data	38.8	+1.0
hle	38.8	+1.0
aime	36.9	-0.9
livebench-reasoning	36.9	-0.9
gpqa	36.9	-0.8
swe-rebench	37.1	-0.7
epoch-game-puzzles	37.1	-0.6
mmlu-pro	38.2	+0.4
frontiermath	37.4	-0.4
gdp-pdf	38.1	+0.3
swe-atlas-qna	37.5	-0.3
briefcase	37.6	-0.2
omniscience	38.0	+0.2
harvey	37.6	-0.2
swe-atlas-test-writing	37.6	-0.2
tau-bench	37.6	-0.2
ifbench	37.6	-0.2
aa-lcr	38.0	+0.2
gdpval	37.7	-0.1
vibe-code	37.7	-0.1
arc-agi-3	37.7	-0.1
vals-finance-agent	37.7	-0.1
enigma-eval	37.7	-0.1
enterprise-ops	37.7	-0.1
automationbench	37.9	+0.1
apex-agents	37.9	+0.1
terminal-bench	37.9	+0.1
livebench-math	37.9	+0.1
vals-legal-research	37.7	-0.1
itbench	37.7	-0.1
vals-tax-agent	37.8	-0.0
critpt	37.8	-0.0
vals-excel-modeling	37.8	-0.0
terminal-bench-science	37.8	-0.0
swe-atlas-refactoring	37.8	-0.0
livecodebench	37.8	-0.0
vals-code-migration	37.8	-0.0
swe-bench-pro	37.8	+0.0
gmmlu	37.8	+0.0
analyst-agent	37.8	+0.0
math500	37.8	-0.0

What evidence is missing from the fit?

Across all collected settings for this model: 163 observations, 121 contributing, 0 matched without graph weight and 42 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.

9 · Benchmark family or source protocol has not been reviewed
5 · Original SciCode grading defects are under review; retained as supporting evidence, excluded from aggregate and capability scores. Corrected SciCode-Verified requires a separate protocol review. Sources: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04975 and https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/scicode
1 · Effort is not identified
4 · Evaluator has not been reviewed for independent admission
9 · Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core
10 · No reviewed effort for this catalog observation; any separately collected effort measurement is counted separately
1 · Mixed source task revisions and best-of-three versus provider reporting prevent a uniform common-core unit.
3 · Narrow specialist biological, medical or security evaluation; preserved as raw evidence outside general capability scoring.

Inspect every observation and exclusion →

Benchmark results

These are published benchmark scores. Supported effort estimates also appear on the Capability leaderboard. Results from different harnesses occupy different rows. Missing cells stay unknown; no scores are copied between effort levels.

Benchmark / source	Low	Medium	High	XHigh	Max	Non-reasoning	Unspecified
AA-AnalystAgentArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks solved on all 5 of 5 attempts · 80 tasks, 5 attempts per task · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	46.25% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	Not reported	Not reported
AA-Briefcase EloArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Briefcase v1.1 is an agentic knowledge work benchmark developed by Artificial Analysis. AA-Briefcase Elo is a combined metric that aggregates rubric pass rate, analytical quality Elo and presentation Elo · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	926.63 Elo Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-low	1,057.7 Elo Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-medium	1,176.53 Elo Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-high	1,273.1 Elo Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	1,358.4 Elo Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	Not reported	Not reported
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	67.33% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-low	73.67% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-medium	76.67% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-high	76.67% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	82% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	70% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-non-reasoning	Not reported
AutomationBench-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of task objectives completed with no guardrail violations · Higher is better · Benchmark developed by Zapier · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	19.9% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-low	27.87% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-medium	32.1% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-high	34.48% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	36.51% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	Not reported	Not reported
CritPtArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Argonne and UIUC, with contributions from 60+ researchers globally. CritPt is under review by its authors following external feedback · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	4.57% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-low	8.57% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-medium	15.14% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-high	15.43% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	16.86% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	1.14% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-non-reasoning	Not reported
EnterpriseOps-Gym-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Overall task success rate across all eight enterprise domains (oracle tool mode) · Benchmark developed by ServiceNow Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	43.87% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	44.67% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	Not reported	Not reported
GDP.pdf: All-pass RateArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of attempts where every atomic criterion passed · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	9.4% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-low	11.6% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-medium	9.4% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-high	12.6% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	13.2% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	Not reported	Not reported
GDPval-AA v2.1 LeaderboardArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Elo rating for performance on real-world work tasks · Anchored to DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) at 1600 · Higher is better · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: elo. Source collected 2026-10-18.	1,067.28 Elo Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-low	1,156.51 Elo Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-medium	1,254.48 Elo Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-high	1,357.91 Elo Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	1,463.81 Elo Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	1,209.69 Elo Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-non-reasoning	Not reported
GPQA DiamondArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	91.11% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	80% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-non-reasoning	Not reported
Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	21.92% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-low	29.98% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-medium	35.73% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-high	39.02% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	41.29% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	19.05% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-non-reasoning	Not reported
MLCR-AAArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Share of tasks judged accurate, complete, and concise · Expert + compound (hard) sets · Benchmark developed by Wisedocs · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	55% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	Not reported	Not reported
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	77.28% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	71.91% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-non-reasoning	Not reported
AA-Omniscience IndexArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Index (higher is better) measures knowledge reliability and hallucination. It rewards correct answers, penalizes hallucinations, and has no penalty for refusing to answer. Scores range from -100 to 100, where 0 means as many correct as incorrect answers, and negative scores mean more incorrect than correct. · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: index. Source collected 2026-10-18.	-8.23 Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-low	-6.87 Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-medium	-3.68 Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-high	3.18 Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	16.45 Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	-0.65 Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-non-reasoning	Not reported
AA-Omniscience AccuracyArtificial Analysis · 6000 questions; 1 attempt; correct-answer share; GPT-5.6 Luna medium grader Benchmark details AA-Omniscience Accuracy (higher is better) measures the proportion of correctly answered questions out of all questions, regardless of whether the model chooses to answer · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	37.35% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-low	37.1% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-medium	37.43% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-high	38.97% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	40.05% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	33.8% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-non-reasoning	Not reported
SciCodeArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark curated by scientists across 16 disciplines. SciCode is under review following an independent audit of the dataset · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	50.12% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-low	51.62% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-medium	54.28% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-high	54.05% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	54.28% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	Not reported	Not reported
𝜏³-BankingArtificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by Sierra Research · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	37.32% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	15.67% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-non-reasoning	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v2.1Artificial Analysis · Artificial Analysis published evaluation; see source for benchmark-specific settings Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	80.52% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	75.28% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-non-reasoning	Not reported
Terminal-Bench v4.0Artificial Analysis · mini-SWE-agent v2.4.6; 66 tasks; pass@1 averaged over 3 repeats; 500 steps; task timeout up to 8 hours Benchmark details Benchmark developed by the Laude Institute, Stanford, and open-source contributors · Independently benchmarked by Artificial Analysis · Evaluation results measured independently by Artificial Analysis Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	2.53% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Low); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-low	2.02% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Medium); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-medium	5.05% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (High); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-high	7.07% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Xhigh); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5-xhigh	14.14% Reported settings Claude Sonnet 5 (Max); Model source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-sonnet-5	Not reported	Not reported
DeepSWE v1.1Datacurve · mini-swe-agent Benchmark details Original public board. Configuration and task coverage may differ; inspect source. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	30.5% Reported settings claude-sonnet-5; Reported effort: low; 113 unique tasks; 449 attempts; 4 runs	39.8% Reported settings claude-sonnet-5; Reported effort: medium; 113 unique tasks; 450 attempts; 4 runs	48.2% Reported settings claude-sonnet-5; Reported effort: high; 113 unique tasks; 452 attempts; 4 runs	49.7% Reported settings claude-sonnet-5; Reported effort: xhigh; 113 unique tasks; 451 attempts; 4 runs	53.8% Reported settings claude-sonnet-5; Reported effort: max; 113 unique tasks; 442 attempts; 4 runs	Not reported	Not reported
Terminal-Bench 2.1Terminal-Bench · Claude Code Benchmark details Original public board. Configuration and task coverage may differ; inspect source. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	74.61% Reported settings Sonnet 5; Reported effort: high; 445 trials; recorded 2026-06-30	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
FrontierCode 1.1 · extended-claude-codeCognition · claude-code Benchmark details FrontierCode 1.1; claude-code. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	44.46% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort low; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.0007	49.28% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort medium; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	52.71% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort high; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.0013	56.18% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort xhigh; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.006	54.85% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; extended; 150 tasks; claude-code; source effort max; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.0053	Not reported	Not reported
FrontierCode 1.1 · main-claude-codeCognition · claude-code Benchmark details FrontierCode 1.1; claude-code. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	28.71% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort low; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.001	35.2% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort medium; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0	39.35% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort high; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.002	42.73% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort xhigh; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.005	42.36% Reported settings FrontierCode 1.1; main; 100 tasks; claude-code; source effort max; weighted rubric score, not pass rate; unfair internet runs zeroed by evaluator; flag rate 0.003	Not reported	Not reported
Terminal-Bench 4.0 · claudecodeTerminal-Bench · Claude Code Benchmark details Terminal-Bench 4.0; Claude Code. Open each result for its exact effort, task subset, metric and protocol details. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	12.4% Reported settings Terminal-Bench 4.0.0; 66 tasks; Claude Code; effort max; reported margin ±3.1 percentage points, confidence level unspecified; release date 2026-06-30; board checked 2026-10-07	Not reported	Not reported
LiveBench · AMPS Hard · 2026-06-25LiveBench · LiveBench official task evaluation Benchmark details LiveBench 2026-06-25 task snapshot. Task scores stay separate and related tasks share their reviewed family budget. Explicit checkpoint and effort labels only. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	98% Reported settings LiveBench official task evaluation; livebench-2026-06-25-AMPS_Hard; claude-sonnet-5-xhigh-effort; checkpoint=claude-sonnet-5	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
LiveBench · code completion · 2026-06-25LiveBench · LiveBench official task evaluation Benchmark details LiveBench 2026-06-25 task snapshot. Task scores stay separate and related tasks share their reviewed family budget. Explicit checkpoint and effort labels only. Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	78.26% Reported settings LiveBench official task evaluation; livebench-2026-06-25-code_completion; claude-sonnet-5-xhigh-effort; checkpoint=claude-sonnet-5	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported

What these comparisons mean

Each source reports its own effort labels. Matching labels do not establish equal compute budgets or identical fallback behavior. Open Reported settings to inspect the exact model name, agent and task coverage. Multiple results at one level remain visible rather than selecting the best. Source-reported None or Non-reasoning labels are not treated as evidence that an API supports those settings.

These measurements use their own dated source collection. The leaderboard fits identified configurations jointly; it contains no pooled model ratings. Explicit thinking budgets are separate configurations. Read the methodology.

Download all effort benchmark results · 8,915 results across 259 models · Collected 2026-10-18

Claude Sonnet 5 · XHigh

Compare with

One configuration, seven capabilities

Agentic

Hard reasoning

Coding

Human pref

Knowledge

Multimodal

Long context

Capability score evidence

Benchmark results