Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude 3 SonnetWhich is better in 2026?

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude 3 Sonnet is 1.7x cheaper per token.

Verdict: Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude 3 Sonnet — which is better?

Claude Opus 4.6 (by Anthropic) and Claude 3 Sonnet (by Anthropic) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while Claude 3 Sonnet is better at 0 benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

On price, Claude 3 Sonnet is roughly 1.7x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Opus 4.6 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Choose Claude Opus 4.6 if…

  • you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 1 of 1 shared benchmarks
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Feb 2026

Choose Claude 3 Sonnet if…

  • cost matters — it's about 1.7x cheaper per token
Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

1 benchmarks

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while Claude 3 Sonnet is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sat Jun 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Claude 3 Sonnet costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 1.7x more expensive than Claude 3 Sonnet ($3.00/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 1.7x more expensive than Claude 3 Sonnet ($15.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.6 is more expensive than Claude 3 Sonnet.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Sat Jun 06 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input tokens$5.00
Output tokens$25.00
Best providerAnthropic
Anthropic
Claude 3 Sonnet
Input tokens$3.00
Output tokens$15.00
Best providerAnthropic
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Claude 3 Sonnet's 200,000 tokens. Claude 3 Sonnet can generate longer responses up to 200,000 tokens, while Claude Opus 4.6 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Anthropic
Claude 3 Sonnet
Input200,000 tokens
Output200,000 tokens
Sat Jun 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude 3 Sonnet support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Opus 4.6

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Claude 3 Sonnet

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Closed source

Claude 3 Sonnet

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.6 was released on 2026-02-05, while Claude 3 Sonnet was released on 2024-02-29.

Claude Opus 4.6 is 24 months newer than Claude 3 Sonnet.

Claude Opus 4.6

Feb 5, 2026

4 months ago

1.9yr newer
Claude 3 Sonnet

Feb 29, 2024

2.3 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 4.6 is available from Anthropic. Claude 3 Sonnet is available from Anthropic, Bedrock, Google.

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

Claude 3 Sonnet

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $3.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $15.00/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $3.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $15.00/1M
google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $3.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $15.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (1,000,000 tokens)
Higher GPQA score (91.3% vs 40.4%)
Anthropic
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic
Claude 3 Sonnet

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude 3 Sonnet.

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Claude 3 Sonnet?

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 is made by Anthropic and Claude 3 Sonnet is made by Anthropic. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Claude Opus 4.6 compare to Claude 3 Sonnet in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores Vending-Bench 2: 100.0%, AIME 2025: 99.8%, Tau2 Telecom: 99.3%, Graphwalks parents >128k: 95.4%, MRCR v2 (8-needle): 93.0%. Claude 3 Sonnet scores ARC-C: 93.2%, GSM8k: 92.3%, HellaSwag: 89.0%, MGSM: 83.5%, BIG-Bench Hard: 82.9%.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 cheaper than Claude 3 Sonnet?

Claude 3 Sonnet is 1.7x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. Claude 3 Sonnet costs $3.00/M input and $15.00/M output via anthropic.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude 3 Sonnet?

Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1.0M tokens and Claude 3 Sonnet supports 200K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude 3 Sonnet?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 200K), input pricing ($5.00 vs $3.00/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Related comparisons