Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) | Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $5 | $3 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $25 | $15 |
Verdict. Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) wins the overall benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.
Pricing. Both models sit in the premium bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.7× the per-million-token cost, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) is strongest on Intelligence Index (38.8). Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) leads on Intelligence Index (36.8).
Speed. Throughput is comparable — 37 tok/s vs 44 tok/s — so generation speed shouldn't drive your choice here. Look at the per-benchmark wins instead.
Provider. Both models come from the same vendor, so the choice comes down to which tier or generation fits your workload — not vendor lock-in.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) costs $525.00 ($6300/year); Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) costs $315.00 ($3780/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $75.00/run, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $45.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $3500/run, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $2100/run. Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.
Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.
Head-to-head deltas
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $6.00/M tokens vs $10.00/M for Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) generates tokens faster at 44 tok/s vs 37 tok/s. However, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) has lower time-to-first-token (1.68s vs 2.13s).
Choose based on your priorities: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) for lower cost, Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) for stronger benchmark performance, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.