Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5

Anthropic · US  |  Anthropic · US · Updated June 2026

Quick verdict

Both are Anthropic models. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the newer, generally stronger default; reach for Claude Opus 5 when a specific cost or latency profile matters more than the latest capabilities.

Claude Opus 5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 is anthropic's July 2026 flagship at $5/$25 with a 1M window and an effort dial — near-frontier quality pitched on cost per task, not raw peak. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is anthropic's September 28, 2026 mid-tier update — same $2/$10 pricing as Sonnet 5 but a large agentic-coding jump (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 70.6% vs 10.3%). 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 5Claude Sonnet 5.5
ProviderAnthropic (US) Anthropic (US)
ReleasedJuly 24, 2026 September 28, 2026
Context window1M (~1,500 pages) 1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)$5/$25 per 1M tokens $2/$10 per 1M tokens
Open weight?No — API only No — API only
Modalitiestext, image, code text, image, code
SWE-Bench VerifiedNot published Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot published Not published

Who wins what

Frontier reasoning at lower cost per task — Anthropic reports it more than doubling Opus 4.8 on Frontier-Bench v0.1

Claude Opus 5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is comparatively weak here — anthropic is explicit that Opus 5.5 'remains clearly stronger' on complex, open-ended work requiring sustained judgment

Agentic coding — within 0.5% of Fable 5's peak CursorBench 3.2 score at half the cost per task (Anthropic's figures)

Claude Opus 5

Claude Opus 5 lists agentic coding — within 0.5% of Fable 5's peak CursorBench 3.2 score at half the cost per task (Anthropic's figures) among its strengths; Claude Sonnet 5.5 does not.

Computer use — surpasses Fable 5's best OSWorld 2.0 result at just over a third of the cost

Claude Opus 5

Claude Opus 5 lists computer use — surpasses Fable 5's best OSWorld 2.0 result at just over a third of the cost among its strengths; Claude Sonnet 5.5 does not.

Terminal-Bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from Claude Sonnet 5's 10.3%

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Opus 5 is comparatively weak here — all launch benchmarks are Anthropic-reported and not yet independently reproduced

Same $2/$10 per million token pricing as Sonnet 5, with cache-read price cut 50% to $0.10/MTok as of October 7, 2026

Claude Sonnet 5.5

At $2/$10 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 5 ($5/$25 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.

Scores close to Opus 5.5 on several benchmarks (e.g. GDPval-AA v2.1 knowledge-work Elo) at a fraction of the cost

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Anthropic's September 28, 2026 mid-tier update — same $2/$10 pricing as Sonnet 5 but a large agentic-coding jump (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 70.6% vs 10.3%) — and it runs cheaper at $2/$10 per 1M tokens.

Lowest cost at scale

Claude Sonnet 5.5

At $2/$10 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.

Which should you pick?

A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume

→ Claude Sonnet 5.5

At $2/$10 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.

Anyone whose priority is frontier reasoning at lower cost per task — anthropic reports it more than doubling opus 4.8 on frontier-bench v0.1

→ Claude Opus 5

It is specifically built for that.

Anyone whose priority is terminal-bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from claude sonnet 5's 10.3%

→ Claude Sonnet 5.5

That is its strongest area.

Claude Opus 5: where it fits

Anthropic's July 2026 flagship at $5/$25 with a 1M window and an effort dial — near-frontier quality pitched on cost per task, not raw peak. Released July 24, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for frontier reasoning at lower cost per task — Anthropic reports it more than doubling Opus 4.8 on Frontier-Bench v0.1, agentic coding — within 0.5% of Fable 5's peak CursorBench 3.2 score at half the cost per task (Anthropic's figures), computer use — surpasses Fable 5's best OSWorld 2.0 result at just over a third of the cost, and a native effort setting (low, medium, high, xhigh, max) that trades token cost against capability on a single model.

Its trade-offs are real: behind Mythos 5 on cybersecurity exploitation and biology research, by Anthropic's own account, all launch benchmarks are Anthropic-reported and not yet independently reproduced, no published SWE-Bench Verified score, so head-to-head coding comparisons rely on Anthropic's own benchmark suite, and fast mode's throughput costs double the base price ($10/$50 per 1M). At $5 in / $25 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.

Claude Sonnet 5.5: where it fits

Anthropic's September 28, 2026 mid-tier update — same $2/$10 pricing as Sonnet 5 but a large agentic-coding jump (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 70.6% vs 10.3%). Released September 28, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for terminal-Bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from Claude Sonnet 5's 10.3%, same $2/$10 per million token pricing as Sonnet 5, with cache-read price cut 50% to $0.10/MTok as of October 7, 2026, scores close to Opus 5.5 on several benchmarks (e.g. GDPval-AA v2.1 knowledge-work Elo) at a fraction of the cost, and anthropic highlights stronger document/slide generation, spreadsheet work, and visual chart recognition (Chartography: 61.6%).

Its trade-offs: anthropic is explicit that Opus 5.5 'remains clearly stronger' on complex, open-ended work requiring sustained judgment, 1M-token context isn't uniformly available across every platform/plan, consistent with the rest of the 5.5 family, and mid-tier update released a week after Opus 5.5 (Sept 22) — Haiku 5.5 followed Oct 7 to complete the family. At $2 in / $10 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.

The bottom line for this matchup

Because Claude Opus 5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 come from the same lab (Anthropic), they share the same training philosophy and ecosystem — the decision is purely tier vs. cost. Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 and drop down only with a concrete reason.

Want both Claude Opus 5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 or Claude Sonnet 5.5 better for coding?

Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 5 leans toward frontier reasoning at lower cost per task — anthropic reports it more than doubling opus 4.8 on frontier-bench v0.1 while Claude Sonnet 5.5 leans toward terminal-bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from claude sonnet 5's 10.3%, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper — $5/$25 per 1M tokens vs $2/$10 per 1M tokens, roughly 2.5× apart on input.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both advertise 1M (~1,500 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.

Should I upgrade from Claude Opus 5 to Claude Sonnet 5.5?

Since both are Anthropic models, the newer one (Claude Sonnet 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 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 — released September 28, 2026, about 2 months after Claude Opus 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.