All models

AnthropicUnited States· released Jun 2026

Claude Sonnet 5

Ranked #17, 29.0% behind the frontier on average.

Anthropic, United States. One of 12 models from this lab on the Index.

Third-party publishedMedium confidence (7+ comparable tests, 3+ Index categories)
Theo

Available in Theo as Theo Think

Theo orchestrates it for the steps it does best and always shows which engine answered.

Use it in Theo

Snapshot September 8, 2026

OpenCharts Index

71.0

Ranked #17 (12 to 18) of 36 · 29.0% behind the frontier on average · 17 comparable tests · 3 counting categories

Drop any single test and the Index lands between 68.0 and 75.2, anywhere from #12 to #18. Neighbours inside that range are ties.

HARD SET

Needs more results (2 of 8 so far)

Averaging 50.0 on the 2 it has; the score opens at 4 of 8.

Distance to today's frontier on the hardest tests. Not a measure of intelligence.

What it's known for

Claude Sonnet 5, in 17 results.

Strongest in reasoning (72.9) and coding (72.1). It trails the frontier most in math, 32.1% behind on average. No comparable result yet in long context. Between 25% and 30% behind the best published results, on average. Drop any single test and it would sit anywhere from #12 to #18.

Strongest category

Reasoning

Hard, novel problems: graduate science, abstract puzzles, expert exams.

72.9

Mean of 3 of the category's 6 comparable tests. Counts toward the Index.

Best single result

Mock AIME 2024–2025

Solve competition mathematics problems that have a single exact integer answer.

94.7%

94.7% of the best (100.0%) · #24 of 78.

Olympiad-style problems need long, careful chains of reasoning, and there is no partial credit.

Where it trails

FrontierMath Tier 4

Solve the hardest FrontierMath tier: problems that take expert mathematicians days.

29.3%

70.0% behind the best published result (97.6%) · #22 of 51.

The deepest end of the set. Progress here signals genuinely new capability.

Not measured yet

No comparable result yet in this category. A blank is a blank, never a zero, and it does not lower the Index.

  • Long context

Covered, but not averaged into the Index:

  • Knowledgesingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 44.6
  • Agentic2 of 8 tests · needs 4 · mean 75.3
  • Multimodalsingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 87.0
  • Human preferencesingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 87.2
Every score, with its source

See it at work

What Claude Sonnet 5 was asked to do, and how it did.

Every test it has taken, by category, with the kind of task it faced, who produced the number and where the result landed against the best published one. The examples are original and illustrative, never items from the datasets themselves.

Human preference · mean 87.2 across 1 comparable test · a single-test category, shown beside the Index and never averaged into it

Text ArenaLeaderboard

Answer the same prompt as a rival model; real users vote blind on which answer they prefer.

1,462

44% expected win rate against the board leader (1,507)
#36 of 92

high · board 2026-09-02

Source: Arena

Every result is read against the best published one on its test: percent scores as a share of the best above chance, Arena ratings as the expected win rate against the board leader, open-ended values on a log scale. Sitting a harder exam never lowers a model. Every number links to the publisher that produced it.

Head to head

Claude Sonnet 5 against whoever you pick.

Choose a rival. Every counted test both have taken appears side by side as a share of the best published result on that test, with the category means above. A win is a higher share; a gap under 2 points is a tie, because one item on a 45-problem exam is 2.2 points and publishers' own standard errors are of that order.

Claude Sonnet 5

#17·Index 71.0B-

0 : 12

wins · 0 ties · 12 shared

GPT-6 Astra

#1·Index 99.0A+

GPT-6 Astra comes out ahead on 12 of the 12 tests both have taken.

Category means

  • Reasoning

    72.9
    99.6
  • Knowledge

    44.6
    100.0
  • Coding

    72.1
    97.7
  • Math

    67.9
    99.8
  • Agentic

    75.3
    98.5
  • Multimodal

    87.0
  • Human preference

    87.2

Shared tests · biggest gaps first

Bars are distances to the best published result on each test (percent scores above chance, Arena ratings as win rate against the leader, open-ended values on a log scale). Raw values as the publishers report them.

Open GPT-6 Astra

Scores

Every test, every source

The best published run per benchmark, the raw value as the publisher reports it, who produced the number, how close it comes to the best published result on that test, and where the model sits among every model scored on it. Percent scores are read above chance, Arena ratings as a win rate against the board leader, open-ended values on a log scale. A test with too few models to compare against is shown but not counted.

Category means

  • Reasoning72.9 · 3/6
  • Knowledgebeside44.6 · 1/1
  • Coding72.1 · 5/7
  • Math67.9 · 4/5
  • Agentic75.3 · 2/8
  • Multimodalbeside87.0 · 1/1
  • Human preferencebeside87.2 · 1/1
  • Long context

Mean · tests taken of the category's comparable tests. A faded category either rests on fewer than half of them or is a single-test category (marked “beside”), which is shown next to the Index and never averaged into it.

GPQA DiamondEpoch-runReasoning

90.5%

92.6% of the best (95.8%), above chance
65th percentile of 78 · n = 198

xhigh

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
SimpleBenchLeaderboardReasoning

60.6%

74.0% of the best (81.9%)
49th percentile of 46

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
CritPtLeaderboardReasoning

16.9%

52.2% of the best (32.3%)
71th percentile of 78

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch-runKnowledge

33.7%

44.6% of the best (75.6%)
27th percentile of 57 · n = 1,000

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
SciCodeLeaderboardCoding

53.6%

86.4% of the best (62.0%)
75th percentile of 73 · n = 338

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
WeirdMLLeaderboardCoding

68.8%

74.0% of the best (92.9%)
72th percentile of 69

high

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
FrontierCodeLeaderboardCoding

42.7%

79.9% of the best (53.5%)
62th percentile of 27

harness: claude-code · reasoning effort: xhigh

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
CursorBenchLeaderboardCoding

61.5%

83.8% of the best (73.4%)
50th percentile of 21

max · reasoning level: Max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
Code Arena (WebDev)LeaderboardCoding

1,537

18% expected win rate against the board leader (1,797)
72th percentile of 86

high · board 2026-09-05

Source: Arena (LMArena) — Leaderboard Dataset

94.7%

94.7% of the best (100.0%)
70th percentile of 78 · n = 45

xhigh

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub

65.6%

70.0% of the best (93.7%)
65th percentile of 61 · n = 290

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch-runMath

29.3%

30.0% of the best (97.6%)
54th percentile of 51 · n = 48

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
ProofBenchLeaderboardMath

77.0%

77.0% of the best (100.0%)
90th percentile of 61

max · reasoning effort: max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
APEX-AgentsLeaderboardAgentic

32.5%

68.6% of the best (47.4%)
65th percentile of 49

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
Vending-Bench 2LeaderboardAgentic

$6,378

81.9% of the best ($11,182) on a log scale
79th percentile of 53

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub
Vision ArenaLeaderboardMultimodal

1,267

44% expected win rate against the board leader (1,313)
60th percentile of 54

high · board 2026-08-27

Source: Arena (LMArena) — Leaderboard Dataset
Text ArenaLeaderboardHuman preference

1,462

44% expected win rate against the board leader (1,507)
62th percentile of 92

high · board 2026-09-02

Source: Arena (LMArena) — Leaderboard Dataset

Nearby on the leaderboard

Compare with its neighbours.

Theo

The best models, ranked here, working inside Theo.

28 of the models on this page run inside Theo today. Theo picks the right one for each step and always shows which engine answered.