Claude Sonnet 4.5 · claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929
Anthropic · 29 Sep 2025
benchmarks
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is an Anthropic model designed for coding, reasoning, computer use and multi-step agent workflows. Its published launch results demonstrate improvements over Claude Sonnet 4, but factual reliability, prompt injection and the consequences of excessive tool permissions remain important limitations.
Benchmark results
Every figure links to where it was published. Compare like with like — harnesses and prompt setups differ between vendors.
| Benchmark | Score | Source |
|---|---|---|
| AIMECompetition mathematics | 87%29 Sep 2025 | View |
| GPQA DiamondPhD-level science questions | 83.4%29 Sep 2025 | View |
| SWE-bench VerifiedResolving real GitHub issues | 77.2%29 Sep 2025 | View |
| Terminal-BenchLong-horizon command-line agent tasks | 50%29 Sep 2025 | View |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-25Competition mathematics | 77.8%28 Oct 2025 | View |
| FrontierMath | 15.2%16 Nov 2025 | View |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions (hallucination resistance) | 30.7%27 Aug 2026 | View |
| MATH Level 5 | 97.7%21 Oct 2025 | View |
| LMArena TextHuman preference Elo from blind chat votes (not a percentage) | 1438 Elo22 Oct 2026 | View |
| LMArena WebDevHuman preference Elo for building web apps (not a percentage) | 1385 Elo23 Oct 2026 | View |
Weighted mean of 8 verified benchmark results: AIME 87%, GPQA Diamond 83.4%, SWE-bench Verified 77.2%, Terminal-Bench 50%, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-25 77.8%, FrontierMath 15.2%, SimpleQA Verified 30.7%, MATH Level 5 97.7%.
Capabilities
- Repository-level software development, debugging and code modification.
- Multi-step agent workflows using external tools.
- Computer interaction through screenshot interpretation and interface actions.
- Mathematical and scientific reasoning with extended thinking.
- Analysis and synthesis of long documents and codebases.
What improved
- Higher SWE-bench Verified performance than Claude Sonnet 4 in Anthropic's evaluations.
- Improved computer-use performance over Claude Sonnet 4.
- Better sustained execution of long-running coding and agent tasks.
- Reduced sycophancy and improved prompt-injection resistance in Anthropic's evaluations.
Known flaws & limitations
- Can generate incorrect facts, faulty reasoning and defective code, including plausible but unsupported conclusions.
- Computer-use and tool workflows can fail or require human intervention.
- Improved prompt-injection resistance does not eliminate susceptibility to malicious external instructions.
- The 1M-token context window is an extended-context option rather than the standard window.
- The listed prices are standard USD rates per million input and output tokens; long-context requests and additional services can cost more.
Risks, safety & security issues
- Instructions hidden in websites, documents or tool results can redirect an agent or induce disclosure of sensitive information.
- Coding and tool-use capabilities can be repurposed for reconnaissance, exploitation and data theft.
- Broad filesystem, network or account permissions can turn model mistakes into unauthorized changes or data exposure.
- Confident but incorrect reports can mislead operators about whether an action succeeded or what information was obtained.
Good fit for
- Supervised software engineering with automated tests and code review.
- Tool-assisted research and document analysis with source checking.
- Multi-step business workflows with scoped permissions and approval gates.
- Computer-use automation in controlled, recoverable environments.
Poor fit for
- Unsupervised high-stakes decisions requiring consistently correct factual judgments.
- Autonomous execution with unrestricted production credentials or destructive permissions.
- Security-sensitive workflows that treat external content as trusted instructions.
References
Profile last reviewed 10/27/2026 and re-checked automatically every few hours against the vendor's published documentation, papers and public leaderboards. Scores come from the cited benchmark results above — confirm limits and pricing against the provider's own documentation before building on them.