Model Comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
vs. o3-mini (high)
Comparing 2 AI models · 11 benchmarks · Anthropic, OpenAI
Recommended Pick
An Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) 10 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Latency, Intelligence
Best Value
o3-mini (high)
100.0 value score
59.9 reasoning / $1.93/1M
Lowest Price
o3-mini (high)
$1.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
o3-mini (high)
59.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
46.4 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
o3-mini (high) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
o3-mini (high) is 3.4x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Speed gap
o3-mini (high) generates about 4.6x as many tokens per second as Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Reasoning gap
o3-mini (high) leads Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) by 14.0 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) leads o3-mini (high) by 29.1 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
o3-mini (high)
OpenAI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) | Op o3-mini (high) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.75/1M | $1.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $4.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.56/1M | $1.93/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Release Date | Feb 17, 2026 | Jan 31, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 45.4 tok/s | 209.0 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1241ms | 20882ms |
| Latency | 1241ms | 20882ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 22.5 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 45.8 | 59.9 |
| Intelligence | 44.4 | 25.2 |
| Coding | 46.4 | 17.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 79.9% | 77.3% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 80.2% |
| HLE | 13.2% | 12.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 73.4% |
| MATH 500 | — | 98.5% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 86.0% |
| SciCode | 46.9% | 39.8% |
| LCR | 57.7% | 39.3% |
| IFBench | 41.2% | 67.1% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 79.5% | 31.3% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 46.2% | 6.1% |
Key Takeaways
o3-mini (high) offers the best value at $1.10/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
o3-mini (high) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 59.9 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) reaches a 46.4 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 Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
- Code generation
- Software development
o3-mini (high)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
