Head-to-head

Claude Sonnet 5 logovsGPT-5.5 logo

Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-5.5: which AI model wins in 2026?

Claude Sonnet 5 ($15/1M out ($10 intro until 2026-08-31)) and GPT-5.5 ($30/1M out) are two of the most-used AI models in 2026. Across 6 community votes, Claude Sonnet 5 leads with 57% approval.

Quick verdict

On Reasoning, pick GPT-5.5: the arena rates it 5/5 against 4.5/5 for Claude Sonnet 5. On budget, Claude Sonnet 5 wins: it starts at $15/1M out ($10 intro until 2026-08-31) versus $30/1M out for GPT-5.5.

Line-by-line comparison

From
$15/1M out ($10 intro until 2026-08-31)Single tier: $3/$15 per 1M tokens standard, $2/$10 introductory through Aug 31, 2026; Batch API -50%; new tokenizer yields roughly 30% more tokens per text (1.0-1.35x per Anthropic), raising effective cost.
$30/1M outStandard tier $5/$30 per 1M tokens (cached input $0.50), double GPT-5.4's $2.50/$15; Batch/Flex $2.50/$15; Priority $12.50/$75; GPT-5.5 Pro $30/$180; prompts over 272K input tokens billed 2x in / 1.5x out.
Provider
Anthropic
OpenAI
Context window
1M tokens (128K max output)
1M tokens (1,050,000)
Input price
$3/1M in ($2 intro until 2026-08-31)
$5/1M in
Output price
$15/1M out ($10 intro until 2026-08-31)
$30/1M out
Modalities
text, vision (image input, text output)
text, vision (image input, text output)
Open weights
No
No
Crowd score
57%(3)
57%(3)
Arena ratings (1-5)
Reasoning
4.5
5.0
Coding
4.5
4.5
Writing
4.5
4.0
Speed
4.0
3.5
Value
4.5
3.0

Strengths and weaknesses

Claude Sonnet 5

  • Large agentic gains over Sonnet 4.6: Terminal-Bench 2.1 80.4% vs 67.0%, OSWorld-Verified 81.2% vs 78.5%, SWE-bench Pro 63.2% vs 58.1%
  • Matches Opus 4.8 on knowledge work (GDPval-AA v2: 1,618 vs 1,615) and nearly ties it on Humanity's Last Exam with tools (57.4% vs 57.9%) at 60% of Opus 4.8 pricing (40% during the intro window)
  • 1M token context window and 128K max output; introductory pricing of $2/$10 per 1M tokens through Aug 31, 2026
  • Persistent self-verifying agent behavior: hands-on reviews note it tests its own code and iterates on hard problems until solved, unlike Sonnet 4.6
  • First Sonnet with xhigh effort level and high-resolution vision (2576px images); adaptive thinking enabled by default
  • Higher code-review precision than Sonnet 4.6 (38-40% vs 29%), producing fewer false-positive findings
  • New tokenizer inflates token counts roughly 30% for the same text (1.0-1.35x per Anthropic; ~1.4x English, ~1.28x Python measured by Simon Willison), raising effective cost despite the unchanged sticker price
  • Verbose and token-hungry: ~$2.29 per task vs ~$1.20 for Sonnet 4.6 in independent tests (ranked 101st of 161 for cost efficiency); at high effort cost-per-task can exceed Opus 4.8
  • Measurably slower than Sonnet 4.6 on small routine edits and prone to over-engineering simple tasks (CodeRabbit hands-on review)
  • Sampling parameters (temperature, top_p, top_k) removed; non-default values return a 400 error, breaking existing pipelines
  • Launch sentiment on HN/Reddit was mixed: the '5' label was seen as overpromising, and stricter cybersecurity safeguards can refuse benign security-adjacent work

GPT-5.5

  • 1M-token context window (1,050,000) with 128K max output and reasoning effort tunable from none to xhigh
  • State-of-the-art ARC-AGI-2 at 85.0% (vs 73.3% for GPT-5.4) and Terminal-Bench 2.0 at 82.7%
  • Strong agentic coding autonomy: devs report it one-shots tasks that took GPT-5.4 multiple turns and fixes its own mistakes; +50 points on Code Arena vs GPT-5.4
  • Aggressive discounts: 90% off cached input ($0.50/1M) and 50% off via Batch or Flex ($2.50/$15)
  • Fast for a frontier reasoner: devs say it is the first GPT model comfortable to run at medium or low thinking effort
  • List price doubled vs GPT-5.4 ($5/$30 vs $2.50/$15) for the same 1M-token context window
  • Overly literal instruction-following: devs report it fails to infer intent in obvious places where Claude succeeds
  • Trails Claude Opus 4.8 on SWE-bench Pro (58.6% vs 69.2%); HN developers still favor Claude roughly 2:1 for coding
  • Sometimes too conservative with code changes or skips deep reasoning entirely, answering immediately on complex prompts
  • Long-context surcharge: prompts over 272K input tokens are billed 2x input and 1.5x output for the whole session

Cast your verdict

One recommendation per tool per gladiator. It reshapes the crowd score everyone sees.

Claude Sonnet 5$15/1M out ($10 intro until 2026-08-31)
57%crowd score · 3
GPT-5.5$30/1M out
57%crowd score · 3

The arena’s verdict on Claude Sonnet 5

Choose Sonnet 5 if you run coding, terminal or computer-use agents and want near Opus 4.8 quality at Sonnet prices, especially during the $2/$10 intro window; it is a strict upgrade over Sonnet 4.6 at low and medium effort. Budget for the new tokenizer and its verbosity: real per-task costs run well above Sonnet 4.6, and at the highest effort levels Opus 4.8 can be the better deal per solved task. Avoid it for latency-sensitive small edits or pipelines that rely on temperature and top_p, which now error. Sonnet 4.6 remains the pragmatic pick for high-volume tiny-diff workloads.

The arena’s verdict on GPT-5.5

Pick GPT-5.5 over GPT-5.4 if you need stronger agentic autonomy, terminal-heavy workflows, or SOTA abstract reasoning, but know the list price doubled from GPT-5.4's $2.50/$15 to $5/$30 while the 1M-token context stayed the same. Teams doing high-stakes multi-file refactoring may still prefer Claude Opus, which leads SWE-bench Pro (69.2% vs 58.6%) and infers intent better from loose prompts. Budget-sensitive users should mind the 272K-token surcharge and reports of faster limit burn, and lean on caching, Batch, or Flex to halve costs.

What the crowd says

On Claude Sonnet 5

Captain Churn

Cheap per token, pricey per task. Independent tests had it near $2.29 a task vs $1.20 on 4.6, and at high effort it can out-cost Opus 4.8. It will not stop talking.

Golden Thumbicus

Terminal-Bench going 67 to 80 over Sonnet 4.6 matches what I see. My CI-fix agent went from constant babysitting to mostly hands-off overnight.

Saint Deployus

Matches Opus 4.8 on knowledge work at 60% of the price, and the intro $2/$10 window makes it silly value. My research agent runs on Sonnet 5 now, zero regrets.

On GPT-5.5

Thumbs Downicus

It is painfully literal. Where Claude infers intent in obvious places, 5.5 wants everything spelled out. And the price doubled vs 5.4 for the same 1M context.

The Fair Reviewer

85 on ARC-AGI-2 and you can feel it. Stuff that used to stall my agent just resolves now. 1M context with 128K output covers every workflow I have.

Sir Ships-A-Lot

5.5 one-shots tasks that took 5.4 three turns, and it fixes its own mistakes mid-run instead of doubling down. The reasoning effort dial from none to xhigh is genuinely useful.

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Sonnet 5 better than GPT-5.5?

On Reasoning, GPT-5.5 rates higher (5/5 vs 4.5/5). The right pick depends on your use case. The line-by-line comparison on this page breaks down pricing, key specs and arena ratings.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5 or GPT-5.5?

Claude Sonnet 5 is cheaper: it starts at $15/1M out ($10 intro until 2026-08-31), while GPT-5.5 starts at $30/1M out.

How much do Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-5.5 cost per 1M tokens?

Claude Sonnet 5: $3/1M in ($2 intro until 2026-08-31) per 1M input tokens, $15/1M out ($10 intro until 2026-08-31) per 1M output tokens. GPT-5.5: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $30/1M out per 1M output tokens.