Model Comparison
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
vs. M (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Anthropic, Sarvam
Recommended Pick
An Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) 15 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
M (Reasoning)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
45.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
30.6 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
M (Reasoning) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) leads M (Reasoning) by 13.4 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) leads M (Reasoning) by 23.1 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) wins 15 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
M (Reasoning)
Sarvam
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) | Sa M (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.38/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.28/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | Sarvam |
| Release Date | May 22, 2025 | May 23, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 50.2 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 1126ms | — |
| Latency | 1126ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 45.1 | 31.7 |
| Intelligence | 33.0 | 8.4 |
| Coding | 30.6 | 7.5 |
| Math | 38.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 68.3% | 41.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 83.7% | 69.6% |
| HLE | 4.0% | 3.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 44.9% | 29.5% |
| MATH 500 | 93.4% | 84.7% |
| AIME 2025 | 38.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 40.7% | 20.3% |
| SciCode | 37.3% | 17.8% |
| LCR | 44.3% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 45.4% | 31.8% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 52.3% | 0.0% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 27.3% | 2.3% |
Key Takeaways
M (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 45.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning) reaches a 30.6 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude 4 Sonnet (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
M (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
