Claude Sonnet 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6
Compare Claude Sonnet 4 and Claude Opus 4.6 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Object Detection, Open Prompt, and Classification.
Compare Claude Sonnet 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6 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
Claude Sonnet 4 is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6 : Overview
Claude 4 Sonnet, released by Anthropic in May 2025, is the mid-tier model in the Claude 4 family, designed to balance capability, cost, and speed. It is multimodal, accepting both text and images, and extends beyond prior versions with improved “computer use” support, allowing API-driven interaction with desktop-like interfaces. By default, it supports 200,000 tokens of context, but as of August 2025, it also offers a 1 million-token context window in public beta—making it one of the most context-capable models available for processing entire codebases or large document sets in a single request.
Sonnet 4 is significantly cheaper than the flagship Opus while still demonstrating strong reasoning, coding, and instruction-following ability with reduced hallucinations. Its extended context capabilities and lower latency make it well-suited for enterprise-scale knowledge management, software development, research assistants, and productivity automation where both cost efficiency and high reliability are essential.
Claude Opus 4.6 is the flagship large language model from Anthropic, released on 2026-02-05 for advanced reasoning, complex coding, and enterprise agent workflows. It supports text and image inputs via API, offers a 200K-token standard context window with a 1M-token beta option, and enables outputs up to 128K tokens, with adaptive reasoning and context compaction for sustained tasks.
As of 2026-02-17, Anthropic also released Claude Sonnet 4.6, extending the 1M-token context window to a broader tier. Opus remains positioned for maximum depth and benchmark performance, while Sonnet 4.6 brings long-context capability to more cost- and latency-sensitive production use cases.
Claude Sonnet 4 vs Claude Opus 4.6 Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 4 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2025 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | $5.00 |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | $25.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | 64.18% |
| Avg Response Time | 21.26s | 23.35s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 130 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.014 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 20%(2/10) |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | 71.4%(10/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | 68.4%(13/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 82.53% | |
| Avg Response Time | 5.05s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 736 | |
| Median output tokens | 99 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0062 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 85.9%(85/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 70%(7/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 76.7%(46/60) | |
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