Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Claude Sonnet 5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Classification, Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5: Overview
Claude Sonnet 4.5, released by Anthropic in September 2025, is the company’s most advanced Sonnet-series model, built for high-performance reasoning, coding, and long-horizon agentic workflows. It is a multimodal system that accepts both text and images, with a 200,000-token context window designed for handling large documents and extended interactions. Anthropic highlights its improvements in reliability, reduced sycophancy, and alignment, making it suitable for sustained enterprise use.
The model delivers strong results in coding and autonomous workflows, achieving 61.4% on the OSWorld benchmark and leading performance on SWE-bench Verified. It introduces infrastructure features such as a memory tool (beta), checkpointing for Claude Code, parallel tool use, and tighter integration with VS Code. Compared to Opus, which targets broader reasoning, Sonnet 4.5 is optimized for structured, long-duration tasks. Positioned against leading offerings from OpenAI and Google, it is aimed at enterprise automation, software engineering, and research-intensive applications.
Claude Sonnet 5 is a mid-tier large language model from Anthropic, released on June 30, 2026, as the latest model in the Sonnet series and a direct successor to Claude Sonnet 4.6. It is a hybrid reasoning model designed primarily for agentic workflows, software coding, and professional tasks. The model features a 1 million token context window, a 128k maximum output token limit, and runs adaptive thinking by default, giving API users fine-grained control over reasoning effort across five levels (low, medium, high, max, and extra-high). It uses an updated tokenizer shared with Opus 4.7 and later models, which produces approximately 30% more tokens for equivalent text compared to earlier Claude models. On benchmarks, Sonnet 5 scores 63.2% on agentic coding and 81.2% on OSWorld, narrowing the gap with Opus 4.8 while remaining at Sonnet-tier pricing.
The model supports text and image input with text output, and accepts tools including browsers and terminals for autonomous multi-step task execution. Anthropic's safety evaluations report that Sonnet 5 shows a lower rate of undesirable behaviors than Sonnet 4.6 and is generally safer in agentic contexts, with improved resistance to prompt injection and reduced sycophancy. Cybersecurity safeguards equivalent to those on Opus 4.7 and 4.8 are active, though Anthropic notes the model was not deliberately trained on cybersecurity tasks. The model is proprietary and API-only, with no open weights.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5 Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2025 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | $10.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 59.7% | 70.15% |
| Avg Response Time | 5.67s | 3.90s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.2K | 2.1K |
| Median output tokens | 182 | 61 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0092 | $0.0048 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 66.7%(6/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 20%(2/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 92.9%(13/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | 78.9%(15/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 67.25% | 83.84% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.93s | 2.77s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 735 | 642 |
| Median output tokens | 115 | 64 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0039 | $0.0019 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 71.7%(71/99) | 88.9%(88/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 20%(2/10) | 50%(5/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 53.3%(16/30) | 90%(27/30) |
| Text Recognition | 66.7%(20/30) | 80%(24/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | 80%(48/60) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology