Compare AI models

API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page.
—$3.00Amazon Bedrock
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input.
—$15.00Amazon Bedrock
—$1,350Amazon Bedrock
Benchmarks
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better.
50%30%
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better.
40.6%72.7%
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better.
41.6%75.4%
Overview
CompanyAnthropicAnthropic
Release dateOct 22 2024May 22 2025
AccessClosedClosed
Model detailsView modelView model

Frequently asked questions

Claude Sonnet 4 leads Claude 3.5 Haiku on 2 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond). Claude 3.5 Haiku shipped 212 days before Claude Sonnet 4, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.

Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.

On BullshitBench v2, Claude 3.5 Haiku leads at 50% vs Claude Sonnet 4 at 30%. On SWE-Bench Verified, Claude Sonnet 4 leads at 72.7% vs Claude 3.5 Haiku at 40.6%. On GPQA Diamond, Claude Sonnet 4 leads at 75.4% vs Claude 3.5 Haiku at 41.6%.