RankingClaude Sonnet 4.6

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Data updated 22 Oct 2026

41 published benchmark measures · 16 benchmark families contribute across 7 task areas. 4 capability estimates available in the full profile. See all results ↓ · Compare published benchmarks →

Model evidence summary

This profile combines published settings. It is not a runnable configuration or a leaderboard rank. Compare measured configurations →

Performance profile

Capabilities

Adjusted comparison score · 0–100

Filled points are supported; hollow points are preliminary. Lines stop at unknown capabilities. Exact values and sources follow below.

Agentic5 families · 1 with independent evidence · Supported8.6

5 core families; 14 direct opponents across 9 labs.

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: 3.9–12.1; 0/13 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: 7.7–36.9; 0/15 unsupported. Smoothing check: 5.5–16.5; 0/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts improved on neutral predictions within evaluated coverage; source sensitivity still requires inspection. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

OSWorld: 20.0 observed win share
MiniMax, os-world.github.io · Source 1 Source 2
Browsecomp: 25.0 observed win share
MiniMax, Mistral · Source 1 Source 2
Apex Agents: 20.0 observed win share
MiniMax · Source 1
GDPval: 71.4 observed win share
MiniMax · Source 1
MCP-Atlas: 14.3 observed win share
MiniMax · Source 1

Hard reasoning3 families · 1 with independent evidence · Supported11.2

3 core families; 65 direct opponents across 12 labs.

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: 8.2–25.1; 0/6 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: 8.0–19.4; 0/16 unsupported. Smoothing check: 4.0–23.7; 0/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts improved on neutral predictions within evaluated coverage. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

ARC-AGI: 54.2 observed win share
arcprize.org · Source 1
Aime: 37.5 observed win share
Microsoft, Mistral · Source 1 Source 2
GPQA: 40.0 observed win share
Microsoft · Source 1

Coding2 families · 1 with independent evidence · Supported3.5

2 core families; 37 direct opponents across 12 labs.

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: 1.7–13.8; 2/6 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: 2.3–13.4; 1/19 unsupported. Smoothing check: 1.7–9.2; 0/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts improved on neutral predictions within evaluated coverage. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

DeepSWE: 3.7 observed win share
deepswe.datacurve.ai · Source 1
SWE-bench Verified: 36.1 observed win share
Microsoft, MiniMax, Mistral · Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

Human pref1 families · 1 with independent evidence · PreliminaryUnknown

1 core families; 76 direct opponents across 17 labs. No connected comparison to the complete reference panel

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 1/1 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 1/1 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: cross-family and cross-publisher predictions could not be evaluated from the available comparison network. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Human preference (Arena): 85.5 observed win share
lmarena.ai · Source 1

Knowledge2 families · 0 with independent evidence · PreliminaryUnknown

2 core families; 1 direct opponents across 1 labs. No connected comparison to the complete reference panel

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 4/4 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 5/5 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: almost no publisher-held-out comparisons remained estimable. Cross-source validity is unresolved. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

MMLU-Pro: 100.0 observed win share
Microsoft · Source 1
Simpleqa Verified: 0.0 observed win share
Microsoft · Source 1

Multimodal1 families · 0 with independent evidence · Preliminary1.2

1 core families; 5 direct opponents across 5 labs. Needs broader benchmark and opponent support

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 8/8 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 8/8 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: limited publisher-held-out coverage. Cross-source validity is unresolved. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Mmmu Pro: 0.0 observed win share
MiniMax · Source 1

Long context2 families · 0 with independent evidence · PreliminaryUnknown

2 core families; 1 direct opponents across 1 labs. No connected comparison to the complete reference panel

Estimated against the same complete panel: gpt-5.6-sol claude-opus-4-8 gemini-3.1-pro . Indirect comparisons assume performance can be summarized by one strength within this capability.

Refit without one family: No supported estimate; 5/5 scenarios unsupported. Without one publisher: No supported estimate; 5/5 unsupported. Smoothing check: No supported estimate; 3/3 unsupported. These are sensitivity checks, not confidence intervals.

Audit: family and publisher holdouts underperformed neutral predictions. Treat this as an exploratory estimate. Validation audit.

Matched family win shares below describe source evidence; they are not averaged to produce the adjusted score.

Graphwalks: 100.0 observed win share
Microsoft · Source 1
Longbench: 100.0 observed win share
Microsoft · Source 1

Scores estimate outcomes against a shared reference panel; they are not accuracy percentages. Sparse or disconnected evidence cannot qualify an overall profile. Open a capability to inspect its evidence.

Reported effort · Maximum reasoning + unspecified

Settings reported in this model's published benchmark results, including results outside the aggregate. Effort names are provider-specific. These are not API defaults or equal compute budgets.

Maximum reasoning: 11 observations
Not specified: 34 observations

Mixed settings means multiple settings occur in the evidence. Best across efforts means the source selected its best reported result across settings; it does not mean Max. Unspecified settings stay unknown. This model-summary chart combines reported settings. The leaderboard keeps identified configurations separate and excludes unknown effort.

Inspect each result and its source ↓ · Download effort evidence

Score contributions and missing evidence

16 contributing families across 7 capabilities. Fixed reference panels do not change when the catalog expands.

Capability is fitted jointly across families. Capability estimates below describe different task areas; their weighted sum is not the Capability score.

Results without reviewed compatibility or a reference match remain in the raw evidence below. Coverage counts only contributing results.

Model information & shareable badge

Lab: Anthropic
Catalog status: active
Availability: Public provider catalog; account and region restrictions may apply
Family: Claude Sonnet
Released: —
Context: —
License: proprietary
Model card: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/model-deprecations
Default Capability family coverage: /badge/claude-sonnet-4-6.svg

Benchmark scores & sources

Original results, evaluation harnesses, and evidence behind this model.

Benchmark	Bucket	Score	Harness	Evidence	Source-recorded date
MMMU-Pro · source release snapshot; version not specified	Multimodal	74.5% Reported settings & source MiniMax launch figure methodology. SWE internal ClaudeCode 4 runs; Terminal 8CPU16GB2h128k Terminus2; Paper/PostTrain Ralph-loop12h; GDPval internal rubric grader; BrowseComp discard64k; OSWorld361tasks. Comparator provider/leaderboard scores where footnoted. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MiniMax M3 model card benchmark figure · figures/benchmark.jpeg · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
MultiChallenge · source release snapshot; version not specified	Supporting evidence	57% Reported settings & source Microsoft own evaluation suite; Sonnet max reasoning; Tables 12/19. LongBenchV2 capped 256k,408 questions; CorpusQA GPT-5.4 high judge; 4 runs. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MAI-Thinking-1 technical report · Tables 12 and 19 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Maximum reasoning	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
OmniDocBench · source release snapshot; version not specified	Supporting evidence	86.9% Reported settings & source MiniMax launch figure methodology. SWE internal ClaudeCode 4 runs; Terminal 8CPU16GB2h128k Terminus2; Paper/PostTrain Ralph-loop12h; GDPval internal rubric grader; BrowseComp discard64k; OSWorld361tasks. Comparator provider/leaderboard scores where footnoted. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MiniMax M3 model card benchmark figure · figures/benchmark.jpeg · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
OSWorld Verified · source release snapshot; version not specified	Agentic	72.5% Reported settings & source MiniMax launch figure methodology. SWE internal ClaudeCode 4 runs; Terminal 8CPU16GB2h128k Terminus2; Paper/PostTrain Ralph-loop12h; GDPval internal rubric grader; BrowseComp discard64k; OSWorld361tasks. Comparator provider/leaderboard scores where footnoted. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MiniMax M3 model card benchmark figure · figures/benchmark.jpeg · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
OSWorld-Verified	Agentic	72.11%	OSWorld-Verified reported Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	official board	2026-03-08
SimpleQA Verified · source release snapshot; version not specified	Knowledge	29% Reported settings & source Microsoft own evaluation suite; Sonnet max reasoning; Tables 12/19. LongBenchV2 capped 256k,408 questions; CorpusQA GPT-5.4 high judge; 4 runs. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MAI-Thinking-1 technical report · Tables 12 and 19 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Maximum reasoning contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
SVG-Bench · source release snapshot; version not specified	Supporting evidence	64.1% Reported settings & source MiniMax launch figure methodology. SWE internal ClaudeCode 4 runs; Terminal 8CPU16GB2h128k Terminus2; Paper/PostTrain Ralph-loop12h; GDPval internal rubric grader; BrowseComp discard64k; OSWorld361tasks. Comparator provider/leaderboard scores where footnoted. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MiniMax M3 model card benchmark figure · figures/benchmark.jpeg · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
SWE-bench Verified · source release snapshot; version not specified	Coding	79.6% Reported settings & source MAI avg 4 runs, temperature 1, top-p .97; simple ReAct bash/string-replace; Terminal-Bench ignores predefined timeouts. Comparator configurations from cited reports. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MAI-Thinking-1 technical report · Table 11, PDF page 53 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
SWE-bench Verified · source release snapshot; version not specified	Coding	79.6% Reported settings & source MiniMax launch figure methodology. SWE internal ClaudeCode 4 runs; Terminal 8CPU16GB2h128k Terminus2; Paper/PostTrain Ralph-loop12h; GDPval internal rubric grader; BrowseComp discard64k; OSWorld361tasks. Comparator provider/leaderboard scores where footnoted. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MiniMax M3 model card benchmark figure · figures/benchmark.jpeg · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
SWE-bench Verified · source release snapshot; version not specified	Coding	79.6% Reported settings & source Maximum reasoning; tau3 4 trials, GPT5.2 low simulator except Sierra reported comparisons; BrowseComp discard-all context at100k. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. Mistral Medium 3.5 model card performance charts · images/image4.png · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified contributes to capability	lab self-report	Reviewed 2026-09-06
SWEAtlas-QnA · source release snapshot; version not specified	Supporting evidence	31.2% Reported settings & source MiniMax launch figure methodology. SWE internal ClaudeCode 4 runs; Terminal 8CPU16GB2h128k Terminus2; Paper/PostTrain Ralph-loop12h; GDPval internal rubric grader; BrowseComp discard64k; OSWorld361tasks. Comparator provider/leaderboard scores where footnoted. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MiniMax M3 model card benchmark figure · figures/benchmark.jpeg · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
SWEAtlas-TestWriting · source release snapshot; version not specified	Supporting evidence	31.8% Reported settings & source MiniMax launch figure methodology. SWE internal ClaudeCode 4 runs; Terminal 8CPU16GB2h128k Terminus2; Paper/PostTrain Ralph-loop12h; GDPval internal rubric grader; BrowseComp discard64k; OSWorld361tasks. Comparator provider/leaderboard scores where footnoted. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MiniMax M3 model card benchmark figure · figures/benchmark.jpeg · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
tau3 Airline · source release snapshot; version not specified	Supporting evidence	83% Reported settings & source Maximum reasoning; tau3 4 trials, GPT5.2 low simulator except Sierra reported comparisons; BrowseComp discard-all context at100k. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. Mistral Medium 3.5 model card performance charts · images/image4.png · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
tau3 Banking · source release snapshot; version not specified	Supporting evidence	28.4% Reported settings & source Maximum reasoning; tau3 4 trials, GPT5.2 low simulator except Sierra reported comparisons; BrowseComp discard-all context at100k. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. Mistral Medium 3.5 model card performance charts · images/image4.png · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
tau3 Retail · source release snapshot; version not specified	Supporting evidence	75.9% Reported settings & source Maximum reasoning; tau3 4 trials, GPT5.2 low simulator except Sierra reported comparisons; BrowseComp discard-all context at100k. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. Mistral Medium 3.5 model card performance charts · images/image4.png · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
tau3 Telecom · source release snapshot; version not specified	Supporting evidence	70.4% Reported settings & source Maximum reasoning; tau3 4 trials, GPT5.2 low simulator except Sierra reported comparisons; BrowseComp discard-all context at100k. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. Mistral Medium 3.5 model card performance charts · images/image4.png · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · 2.0	Coding	59.1% Reported settings & source MAI avg 4 runs, temperature 1, top-p .97; simple ReAct bash/string-replace; Terminal-Bench ignores predefined timeouts. Comparator configurations from cited reports. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MAI-Thinking-1 technical report · Table 11, PDF page 53 · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Microsoft report Table 11 and section 4.1: MAI Terminal-Bench removes timeouts and uses a minimal ReAct harness; comparator values are cited from other model releases. A common evaluation protocol is not established.	Reviewed 2026-09-06
ThinkingBox-Bench	Supporting evidence	59.19%	ThinkingBox-Bench pass@1 Effort: Not specified	official board Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	2026-10-03
VIBE-V2 · source release snapshot; version not specified	Supporting evidence	42.8% Reported settings & source MiniMax launch figure methodology. SWE internal ClaudeCode 4 runs; Terminal 8CPU16GB2h128k Terminus2; Paper/PostTrain Ralph-loop12h; GDPval internal rubric grader; BrowseComp discard64k; OSWorld361tasks. Comparator provider/leaderboard scores where footnoted. First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MiniMax M3 model card benchmark figure · figures/benchmark.jpeg · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
YC-Bench · source release snapshot; version not specified	Supporting evidence	100000 USD Reported settings & source Launch figure; agent final assets First-party reported result; comparator results retain the source evaluation setup. MiniMax M3 model card benchmark figure · figures/benchmark.jpeg · reviewed 2026-09-06	Published configuration Effort: Not specified	lab self-report Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core	Reviewed 2026-09-06
GDPval-AA	Agentic	—	—	—	—
GPQA Diamond	Hard reasoning	—	—	—	—
Humanity's Last Exam	Hard reasoning	—	—	—	—
LiveCodeBench	Coding	—	—	—	—
MMLU-Pro	Knowledge	—	—	—	—