Claude 3 Opus vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Claude 3 Opus | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU (general capability) | 86.8% | 88.7% | -1.9% |
| Context window | 200K tokens | 200K tokens | — |
| Price (input / output per 1M) | $15 / $75 | $3 / $15 | — |
| Access | Proprietary API | Proprietary API | — |
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads general capability (MMLU 88.7% vs 86.8%).
Verdict: Claude 3 Opus or Claude 3.5 Sonnet?
Claude 3 Opus advantages
- No decisive advantage on the tracked metrics.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet advantages
- Input cost (+80%)
- Output cost (+80%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Claude 3.5 Sonnet if you process large volumes of input and want the lowest cost.
Value for money
Claude 3.5 Sonnet offers more capability per dollar — a better value pick for high-volume use, delivering 5.11× the MMLU-per-cost of the alternative.
Claude 3 Opus vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet: which should you choose?
Claude 3 Opus — Anthropic large language model (2024) with a 200K-token context window and an MMLU score of 86.8%.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet — Anthropic large language model (2024) with a 200K-token context window and an MMLU score of 88.7%.
Claude 3 Opus vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scores higher on the MMLU benchmark. Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads general capability (MMLU 88.7% vs 86.8%).
Capability and reasoning
On MMLU — a 57-subject benchmark of general knowledge and reasoning — the Claude 3.5 Sonnet scores 88.7% versus 86.8%. MMLU is a useful proxy for raw knowledge but does not capture instruction-following, coding, tool use, latency or safety, so treat it as one signal among several.
Context window
The Claude 3 Opus handles up to 200K tokens per request, which sets how much documentation, transcript or code it can reason over at once — decisive for retrieval-augmented and long-document workflows.
Pricing and access
Claude 3 Opus is proprietary api and Claude 3.5 Sonnet is proprietary api. Proprietary models bill per token via API; open-weight models can be self-hosted, trading per-call cost for infrastructure you manage. For production, weigh throughput, rate limits and data-residency needs alongside headline price.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the ai model comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Claude 3 Opus better than the Claude 3.5 Sonnet?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads general capability (MMLU 88.7% vs 86.8%).
What is the main difference between the Claude 3 Opus and the Claude 3.5 Sonnet?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads general capability (MMLU 88.7% vs 86.8%).
Which is better value?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet offers more capability per dollar — a better value pick for high-volume use, delivering 5.11× the MMLU-per-cost of the alternative.
Which should I choose?
Choose the Claude 3.5 Sonnet if you process large volumes of input and want the lowest cost.
Methodology
Large language models are compared on the MMLU benchmark (a widely-cited 57-subject test of general knowledge and reasoning, reported as a percentage), maximum context window, and published API pricing per million input and output tokens. Open-weight models can also be self-hosted. Benchmarks capture only part of real-world quality, which also depends on tool use, latency, safety and task fit.