Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5

Anthropic · US  |  Anthropic · US · Updated June 2026

Quick verdict

Both are Anthropic models. Claude Opus 5.5 is the newer, generally stronger default; reach for Claude Sonnet 4.5 when its lower price or a specific cost or latency profile matters more than the latest capabilities.

Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 are both Anthropic models, so the real question is not which lab to trust but which tier fits your workload and budget. Claude Opus 5.5 is anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is september 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Since both come from the same lab, the comparison below focuses on the tier-and-cost trade-offs that actually separate them.

Key differences at a glance

Side-by-side specs

SpecClaude Opus 5.5Claude Sonnet 4.5
ProviderAnthropic (US) Anthropic (US)
ReleasedSeptember 22, 2026 September 29, 2025
Context window1M tokens (~1,500 pages) 200K (~300 pages)
Price (in/out)$4/$20 per 1M tokens $3/$15 per 1M tokens
Open weight?No — API only No — API only
Modalitiestext, image, code text, image, code
SWE-Bench VerifiedNot published 77.2%
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot published Not published

Who wins what

Performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is comparatively weak here — superseded twice — Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5 match or beat it at the same or lower price

Anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is comparatively weak here — capped at 200K since Anthropic retired its 1M beta in April 2026, while its successors ship 1M as standard

Pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok

Claude Opus 5.5

Its 1M tokens window holds about 5× more than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K in a single prompt.

Agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is comparatively weak here — first model in the 5.5 line; Anthropic has signaled Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 are still weeks away, so the lower tiers of the family aren't out yet

Computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch)

Claude Sonnet 4.5

September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded — and it runs cheaper at $3/$15 per 1M tokens.

Long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks among its strengths; Claude Opus 5.5 does not.

Lowest cost at scale

Claude Sonnet 4.5

At $3/$15 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.

Largest single-prompt input

Claude Opus 5.5

Its 1M tokens window is about 5× larger than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.

Which should you pick?

A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume

Claude Sonnet 4.5

At $3/$15 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 5.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.

Someone analysing very long documents or codebases

Claude Opus 5.5

Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.

Anyone whose priority is performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5

Claude Opus 5.5

It is specifically built for that.

Anyone whose priority is agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch

Claude Sonnet 4.5

That is its strongest area.

Claude Opus 5.5: where it fits

Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Released September 22, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5, anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning, pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok, and output speed increased over 30% versus Opus 5.

Its trade-offs are real: not a reasoning-ceiling upgrade over Fable 5.1 — pitched as matching its performance at lower cost, not beating it outright, like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window, and first model in the 5.5 line; Anthropic has signaled Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 are still weeks away, so the lower tiers of the family aren't out yet. At $4 in / $20 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.

Claude Sonnet 4.5: where it fits

September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Released September 29, 2025 by Anthropic, it is built for agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch), long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks, and tracking its own remaining token budget natively, which few models do.

Its trade-offs: superseded twice — Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5 match or beat it at the same or lower price, capped at 200K since Anthropic retired its 1M beta in April 2026, while its successors ship 1M as standard, and missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets. At $3 in / $15 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.

The bottom line for this matchup

Because Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 come from the same lab (Anthropic), they share the same training philosophy and ecosystem — the decision is purely tier vs. cost. Claude Opus 5.5 is the more capable, more recent option; the other earns its place only when its price or latency profile fits a specific job better. Most teams should default to Claude Opus 5.5 and drop down only with a concrete reason.

Want both Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.

See pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Claude Sonnet 4.5 better for coding?

Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for Claude Opus 5.5, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 5.5 leans toward performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 while Claude Sonnet 4.5 leans toward agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Claude Sonnet 4.5?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is cheaper — $4/$20 per 1M tokens vs $3/$15 per 1M tokens, roughly 1.3× apart on input.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5.5 — 1M tokens vs 200K, about 5× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.

Should I upgrade from Claude Sonnet 4.5 to Claude Opus 5.5?

Since both are Anthropic models, the newer one (Claude Opus 5.5) is usually the better default unless you need a specific cost or latency profile from the other.

Which is newer, Claude Opus 5.5 or Claude Sonnet 4.5?

Claude Opus 5.5 — released September 22, 2026, about 12 months after Claude Sonnet 4.5.

Related comparisons

Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.