Back to Text & reasoning

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5 using the same provider-sourced text & reasoning rubric. No mystery score and no invented benchmark ranking.

Estimate your cost

Set your usage. Your estimate updates as you type.

Example: 6,000 input tokens for 10 pages, plus a 500-token summary. Page lengths vary; adjust the numbers below.

One run sends your input to the model once and receives an answer. Tokens are pieces of text: input is what you send, output is the answer you receive.

Advanced options
How this estimate works

Estimates exclude taxes, tools, cache storage/writes, free allowances and custom discounts. Image estimates cover output only, not prompt or reference-image charges. Quality modes differ by model. Unlisted settings are not treated as free.

Estimate your cost
ModelEstimated total (USD)
Claude Sonnet 5Anthropic$0.017
Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic$0.017

Quick take

Claude Sonnet 5.5

A Claude model for everyday coding, writing and visual analysis, with room for large reference documents.

Best for

  • Everyday coding and bug fixes
  • Reports and presentation drafts
  • Reviewing text and images

Watch out for

Check existing API integrations before switching: use between_tools instead of disabled for the lowest thinking setting. Forced tool calls are not supported. Reasoning uses billed output tokens.

Claude Sonnet 5

A lower-priced Claude option for everyday coding, writing and tool-assisted work.

Best for

  • Coding assistants
  • Everyday analysis

Watch out for

Migration from older Sonnet versions needs testing: thinking settings and tokenization have changed.

Compare the published facts

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5

Values use each provider's own published units and limits. A blank means the provider did not publish a directly comparable value in the sources reviewed.

Text & reasoningClaude Sonnet 5.5Claude Sonnet 5
Context windowMaximum combined prompt and working context documented by the provider.1M tokens1M tokens
Maximum outputProvider-published response limit, where available.128K tokens128K tokens
Knowledge cutoffLatest reliable knowledge date explicitly published by the model provider. Search and connected tools can retrieve newer information but do not change the model's built-in cutoff.June 2026January 2026
Input priceCurrent standard list price per million input tokens unless noted.$2 / 1M$2 / 1M
Output priceCurrent standard list price per million output tokens unless noted.$10 / 1M$10 / 1M
InputsMedia types accepted by the listed model endpoint.Text, imageText, image
Tools & agentsSelected native tools and agent-building capabilities, not an exhaustive list.Tool use, agents, vision, coding workflowsTool use, agents, vision, coding workflows

How to choose

Compare the job, not the hype.

Start with the job you need to complete, then validate cost, access, and policy details on your exact provider route.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Anthropic does not train on API data without express permission. Retention depends on the API feature, account agreement and cloud provider.

Claude Sonnet 5

Anthropic does not train on API data without express permission. Retention depends on the API feature, account agreement and cloud provider.

Frequently asked questions

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5 FAQ

What is the main difference between Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5?

Claude Sonnet 5.5: A Claude model for everyday coding, writing and visual analysis, with room for large reference documents. Claude Sonnet 5: A lower-priced Claude option for everyday coding, writing and tool-assisted work.

Should I choose Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Claude Sonnet 5?

Consider Claude Sonnet 5.5 when your priority is Everyday coding and bug fixes. Consider Claude Sonnet 5 when your priority is Coding assistants. Test both with your own data and provider route before committing.

Is this Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5 comparison based on Cody benchmarks?

No. This comparison aligns provider-published facts for the Text & reasoning category. It does not claim a universal winner or combine incompatible third-party benchmark scores.