Models·9 min read
By BitsMindsSource: Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 5.5 Is Out: Sonnet Price, Near-Opus Scores

Anthropic released Claude Sonnet 5.5 on 28 September at Sonnet 5's price of $2 and $10 per million tokens, with benchmark scores close to Opus 5.5. Independent tests back the pitch up to high effort and show where it stops: at maximum effort it costs more per task than Opus 5.5.

Claude Sonnet 5.5: more capability at Sonnet prices An ivory, machined performance console has a large terracotta rotary dial bearing the official Claude asterisk. Its pointer is set to High among five effort settings: Low, Medium, High, Xhigh and Max. Beside it, the title names Claude Sonnet 5.5 and quotes its standard API prices of 2 US dollars per million input tokens and 10 US dollars per million output tokens. The physical console is an editorial metaphor, not an Anthropic product. The highlighted effort setting reflects the linked article's independent cost/performance discussion and does not promise an optimal setting for every workload. LOWMEDIUMHIGHXHIGHMAX EFFORT HIGH LOW MEDIUM SONNET 5.5 ADAPTIVE THINKING CLAUDE Sonnet 5.5 $2 INPUT $10 OUTPUT USD PER MILLION TOKENS BITSMINDS.COM
Share:

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is Anthropic's new mid-tier model, released on 28 September 2026 as the second member of the Claude 5.5 family after Opus 5.5. It answers to the model ID claude-sonnet-5-5, has a 1M-token context window with up to 128K tokens of output, and costs $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output, exactly what Claude Sonnet 5 costs. It is available now on the Claude API, in Claude's apps and Claude Code, and through Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud and Microsoft Foundry. Haiku 5.5, the third model in the family, is still due “in the coming weeks”.

Anthropic's pitch is a clear upgrade on Sonnet 5 that generates output more than 30% faster and costs up to 30% less per task, because it needs far fewer tokens to do the same work. Where Opus 5.5 is aimed at complex work that needs careful judgement, Sonnet 5.5 is positioned for well-scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and polished documents, slides and spreadsheets.

Close to Opus, far past Sonnet 5

The next three charts use Anthropic's own figures from its launch post. Independent measurements follow further down.

CodingAccuracy, % — higher is better · Anthropic's own figures, 28 September 2026Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Sonnet 502040608010070.666.410.3Terminal-Bench4.052.154.442.4FrontierCodev1.155.557.834.1CursorBench 4.0
Terminal-Bench is the one row where Sonnet 5.5 beats Opus 5.5, whose 66.4% is its best score, at Xhigh. The FrontierCode bar is Sonnet 5.5 at Xhigh; at Max it scores 46.2%. Source: Anthropic.

Coding is where the jump is largest. On Terminal-Bench 4.0, Anthropic puts Sonnet 5.5 at 70.6%, ahead of Opus 5.5's best of 66.4%. It lists Sonnet 5 at 10.3% on the same test and does not comment on that figure, which is far below the 52.3% it published for Opus 5 on 22 September. On CursorBench, built from real Cursor sessions, Sonnet 5.5's best score is within about two points of Opus 5.5. FrontierCode, which asks whether a code change could be merged without human edits, has a wrinkle Anthropic flags itself: Sonnet 5.5 scores 52.1% at Xhigh effort but 46.2% at Max, because at Max it more often ran Claude Code's multi-agent review skill and made changes beyond the task.

Reasoning, computer use and chartsAccuracy, % — HLE with tools, OSWorld partial credit, Chartography no tools · Anthropic's own figuresClaude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Sonnet 502040608010064.567.754.9Humanity's LastExam80.181.857.0OSWorld 2.161.664.415.6Chartography
Sonnet 5.5 sits 1.7 to 3.2 points under Opus 5.5 on all three. The jump from Sonnet 5 is largest in computer use and chart reading.

Away from code, Sonnet 5.5 lands 1.7 to 3.2 points under Opus 5.5 on Humanity's Last Exam, OSWorld 2.1 and Chartography. The movement against Sonnet 5 is the bigger story: computer use rises from 57.0% to 80.1%, and chart recognition from 15.6% to 61.6%. Anthropic also says it is the first Sonnet model to beat Pokémon Red working only from screenshots.

Knowledge work, Elo points above Sonnet 5Sonnet 5 = 0 (1449 on GDPval-AA, 1359 on AA-Briefcase) · run by Artificial Analysis, published by AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.5GPT-6 Sol010020030040050039539738GDPval-AA v2.1452463124AA-Briefcasev1.1
On both professional-task boards Sonnet 5.5 finishes within 11 Elo points of Opus 5.5. OpenAI has since fixed an image-understanding bug in GPT-6 Sol, so its two scores may not reflect the current model.

The Elo boards come from Artificial Analysis, which Anthropic says ran them on a pre-release deployment with a since-fixed bug affecting structured outputs; it expects any effect to be small and to understate Sonnet 5.5. On GDPval-AA, which covers tasks from 44 occupations, Sonnet 5.5 finishes two points behind Opus 5.5 and about 400 ahead of Sonnet 5.

The independent numbers: cheap up to High

Artificial Analysis has already run Sonnet 5.5 through its Intelligence Index, version 4.3.2, a set of ten evaluations, at all five effort settings. At maximum effort it scores 56, second only to Opus 5.5 among the models on the index: two points behind it, and three ahead of Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra. The same run cost $7.60 per index task, more than Opus 5.5's $5.98 at its own maximum. The curve below that point tells a more useful story than the headline.

Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, by effort settingIndex v4.3.2, 0–100 scale, axis from zero · independent runs, read 29 September 2026Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.50102030405060703642Low4151Medium4754High5256Xhigh5658Max
Opus 5.5 scores higher at every setting; the gap is widest at Medium, ten points, and narrows to two at Max. Sonnet 5 at Max scores 38. Data: Artificial Analysis.
Cost per Intelligence Index task, by effort settingUS cents — lower is better · Artificial Analysis, index v4.3.2Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.502004006008004155Low59134Medium108182High274346Xhigh760598Max
Sonnet 5.5 is cheaper at every setting except Max, where it generated 410 million tokens across the index against Opus 5.5's 260 million and costs $7.60 a task to Opus 5.5's $5.98.

From Low to High, Sonnet 5.5 is cheap: $0.41, $0.59 and $1.08 a task. Medium, the default in Claude's apps and Claude Code, scores 41, above Sonnet 5's best of 38 at Max for about a ninth of Sonnet 5's $5.09. That independently supports Anthropic's claim that Sonnet 5.5 at low or medium effort beats Sonnet 5's best for around a tenth of the cost. High, the default on the API, scores 47 for $1.08, a point behind GPT-6 Sol at its maximum (48 for $1.05) at almost the same price.

Above High, the value drains away. Xhigh costs $2.74 a task for 52, and Max $7.60 for 56. Opus 5.5 reaches 54 at High for $1.82 and 56 at Xhigh for $3.46, less than half what Sonnet 5.5 pays for the same score. The two models overlap at the bottom of the range as well: Opus 5.5 at Low scores 42 for $0.55, a point more than Sonnet 5.5 at Medium for four cents less. On this index Sonnet 5.5 is the cheapest route to a given score only at its Low and High settings; everywhere else Opus 5.5 gets there for less. One index is not every workload, and a job's own token use can differ, but the result argues against reaching for Max by default.

What the index does not price is speed. Artificial Analysis also times the complete response, reasoning included. At Medium, Sonnet 5.5 returns in about 6 seconds, against 18.5 seconds for Opus 5.5 at Low and 28.5 at Medium. Its output streams faster at every setting too, 139 tokens a second at Max against 93 for Opus 5.5. For interactive work, where waiting costs more than tokens, that is the case for Sonnet 5.5 even at the points where the index says Opus 5.5 is cheaper.

What changes for developers

The price list is identical to Sonnet 5's: $2.50 per million tokens for five-minute cache writes, $4 for one-hour writes, $0.20 for cache reads, and half price on the Batch API, where output can run to 300K tokens with a beta header. The tokenizer is also unchanged, so the same text counts the same tokens. Behaviour is what changes. Anthropic lists five breaking changes for code written for Sonnet 5:

  • Thinking can be reduced but not disabled. Adaptive thinking is on by default, and thinking: {"type": "disabled"} now returns a 400 error. The lowest setting is a new between_tools mode, which turns off up-front thinking but still returns short progress notes between tool calls. It is accepted only at High effort or below.
  • Forced tool use is gone. A tool_choice of any or a named tool returns an error, as it already does on Opus 5.5. Anthropic points to strict tool use or structured outputs instead.
  • Thinking blocks are tied to the model and the conversation. No other model can read Sonnet 5.5's thinking blocks, and on accounts created on or after 31 August 2026, replaying one after an earlier turn has been edited returns an error. Anthropic's advice is to keep conversations append-only.
  • Computer use moves to the new toolset, computer_toolset_20260801, on the Claude API and Google Cloud.
  • The advisor tool drops three pairings. Opus 4.8, Opus 4.7 and Sonnet 5 can no longer advise a Sonnet 5.5 executor.

A quieter change can catch streaming interfaces: text Sonnet 5.5 writes between tool calls now arrives inside thinking blocks, so an app that shows it to users goes silent until it opts back in. Non-default temperature, top_p or top_k values return an error, and effort defaults to High on the API and Medium in Claude's apps and Claude Code. The migration guide has before-and-after requests for each change.

The first Sonnet with cyber safeguards

Anthropic describes Sonnet 5.5's cyber capabilities as comparable to Opus 5's, and ships it with the kind of cybersecurity safeguards it has so far reserved for its most capable models, a first for a Sonnet. Routine bug-finding and fixing is unaffected, but higher-risk security tasks visibly fall back to Sonnet 5. It is also the first Sonnet to launch with classifiers that block reasoning extraction, aimed at distillation. In its launch post, Anthropic says Sonnet 5.5 matches or improves on Sonnet 5 on most alignment measures in an automated audit of about 1,850 scenarios, and is the least likely of any of its models to probe the limits of its container; the evaluations are detailed in its system card. That claim arrives two days after OpenAI said it had paused work on its most capable models when an agent escaped its sandbox.

How the leaks held up

Our preview, published on the morning of 28 September, weighed a noisy leak chain against the one source with a hit behind it: the X account @lyraxana, which had called Opus 5.5's name, date and prices. Lyra said Sonnet 5.5 would come that week, possibly before Monday morning was out. It shipped that Monday. The preview noted that Monday morning had passed without it, but that line went up at 11:11 UTC, a little after 4 a.m. in San Francisco, and the model arrived later the same day.

ClaimWhere it came fromOutcome
Release in the week of 28 September@lyraxana on XRight: 28 September
Launch on 30 September or 1 OctoberX account Pankaj Kumar, via Startup FortuneWrong: two days early
$2 input, $10 output, $0.20 cache readsTestingCatalogRight
872K-token context, 128K outputFactory's Droid registryOutput right; the context window is 1M
2M-token contextEarlier X postsWrong
Adaptive thinking on by defaultTestingCatalogRight, though unlike Opus 5.5 it can be turned down to between_tools
Codename “Fennec”X postsStill unconfirmed

The price was the claim the preview said would look the same whether the leak was genuine or copied from Sonnet 5's price sheet, and it held: Sonnet 5.5 costs exactly what Sonnet 5 does. The 872K figure, which the preview flagged as a number no current Anthropic model uses, did not become one.

Taken together, launch day supports a narrower conclusion than either the announcement or the index alone. Sonnet 5.5 is a real step past Sonnet 5 at the same list price, and at Medium or High effort it is one of the cheapest ways to a strong score on independent tests. Above High, on the numbers available so far, the better buy is not a higher effort setting but Opus 5.5.

Our verdict: Sonnet 5.5 earns 4.5 out of 5. Read the Claude Sonnet 5.5 review, which sets out when to choose it over Opus 5.5.

More on Claude

Evergreen coverage we keep current — start here.

Want AI news before everyone else?

The morning's most important AI stories, straight to your inbox. No fluff.

Related Articles

Claude Sonnet 5.5: a model on the horizon, details still open The official Claude asterisk becomes a floating terracotta sculpture above a cream circular plinth. A calendar and a price tag orbit it, each carrying a question mark. The title names Sonnet 5.5; the accompanying caption makes clear that its release date and price are unconfirmed. The artwork illustrates the linked article's distinction between a forthcoming model and uncertain launch details, without asserting a date, price or specification. COMING WEEKS RELEASE API PRICE $ ? ANTHROPIC Sonnet 5.5 Release date & price STILL UNCONFIRMED BITSMINDS.COM
Models

Claude Sonnet 5.5: What the Opus 5.5 Leaker Says Now

GOOGLE DEEPMIND Gemini 4 the next flagship STATUS POST-TRAINING Pre-training began 21 July BITSMINDS.COM
Models

Gemini 4: When It Ships and Why Google Skipped 3.5 Pro

GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-6 Sol: a small step at half the token price. Two equally sized metallic suns illuminate one miniature workbench with an interchange, a fairground and a rocket launch. Original BitsMinds editorial artwork for gpt-6-sol-vs-gpt-5-6-sol-build-off-2026. The half-price statement concerns the API input and output per-token list rates described in the article, not total run cost. Equal-size celestial instruments represent two Sol generations and do not encode scores. The models on the workbench symbolize the shared briefs rather than reproduce either delivered build. Official OpenAI outline preserved verbatim. Static, self-contained vector artwork. GPT-5.6 Sol GPT-6 Sol vs BITSMINDS LAB A SMALL STEP. HALF THE TOKEN PRICE. Three briefs. Two generations. BITSMINDS.COM
Models

GPT-6 Sol vs GPT-5.6 Sol: A Small Step for Half the Price