Verified October 2026

Home › Compare › Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6

Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6

A straight cost comparison of Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic), per 1,000,000 tokens, verified October 2026.

$5Claude Opus 5 input / 1M
$3Claude Sonnet 4.6 input / 1M
40%Blended price gap
Claude Sonnet 4.6Cheaper blended

Rate-by-rate comparison

USD per 1M tokens · October 2026
MetricClaude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 4.6Winner
Input / 1M$5$3Claude Sonnet 4.6
Cached input / 1M$0.50$0.30Claude Sonnet 4.6
Cache write / 1M$6.25$3.75Claude Sonnet 4.6
Output / 1M$25$15Claude Sonnet 4.6
Context window1,000,0001,000,000Tie
Batch APIYesYesTie
Long-context tierNoneNone—

For per-token metrics, the lower number wins. For context window and batch support, the higher or broader option wins. A dash means the provider does not publish that rate: a missing cache-write fee means writes are not billed per token, while a missing cached-input rate means cache hits bill at the full input rate.

Blended cost: 1M input + 250K output

ModelBlended costDifference
Claude Opus 5$11.25+$4.50
Claude Sonnet 4.6$6.75Cheaper

Three workloads, two bills

WorkloadClaude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 4.6Winner
Support chat
1,000 requests · 4K input / 600 output
$35$21Claude Sonnet 4.6
RAG with caching
1,000 requests · 50K input (45K cached) / 1K output
$72.76$43.66Claude Sonnet 4.6
Nightly batch job
10,000 requests · 10K input / 2K output
$500$300Claude Sonnet 4.6

Which one should you pick?

Claude Opus 5 wins on none of the three workloads above, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins on support chat, cached RAG, nightly batch job.

Beyond price, the two differ on input rate ($5 vs $3); output rate ($25 vs $15); cached-input rate ($0.50 vs $0.30); cache-write rate ($6.25 vs $3.75).

Batch mode is available on Claude Opus 5 and Claude Sonnet 4.6, which halves the nightly job. Both publish cached-input discounts, so a stable system prompt is worth caching on either.

FAQ

Is Claude Opus 5 cheaper than Claude Sonnet 4.6?

On a blended 1M-input-plus-250K-output workload, Claude Sonnet 4.6 is cheaper by 40% ($6.75 vs $11.25). The gap changes for cache-heavy prompts and for batch jobs, as the workload table shows.

Which handles longer prompts, Claude Opus 5 or Claude Sonnet 4.6?

Both models share the same 1,000,000-token context window. Neither model publishes a long-context surcharge.

Do both models support prompt caching?

Claude Opus 5 bills cached reads at $0.50 per 1M; Claude Sonnet 4.6 at $0.30.

Related comparisons

Run your own token volumes