The first entry is always the pin's source. Overall confidence is a weighted average of how firmly each reference supports the start and end times used above; a reference counts half as much for every 180 days older than the newest.
The post is dated "Sep 29, 2025" and says "Claude[2] Sonnet 4.5 is available everywhere today"; the docs model page lists "Released September 29, 2025" and TechCrunch[4] reports the launch "On Monday".
Anthropic's[1][3] model page: claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929, 200K context window, 64K max output, $3/$15 per million tokens, extended thinking, text and images in, a January 2025 reliable knowledge cutoff, "Released September 29, 2025".
Anthropic's[1] system card for Claude[2] Sonnet 4.5, "a new hybrid reasoning large language model" (September 2025), with the alignment and safety evaluations behind its ASL-3 release.
TechCrunch, 2025-09-29: "On Monday, Anthropic[1][3] launched a new frontier model called Claude[2] Sonnet 4.5" at Sonnet 4's $3/$15; researcher David Hershey saw it code autonomously for up to 30 hours; it arrives less than two months after Claude Opus 4.1.
CNBC, 2025-09-29: available to all users from the $183 billion startup; Mike Krieger says it will be the default and recommends it for "basically every use case"; it runs autonomously for 30 hours against Opus 4's seven.
Something missing or wrong? Say it in your own words: a link that backs this pin up, a different start or end date and why, or a fact it lacks or gets wrong. The AI checks it against this pin's sources, searches for better ones, and adds any page that backs you up. The pin's own sources still count most. A picture that shows something else, or shows it badly, is looked at too, and moved down or replaced.
From Anthropic's launch post; chart figures are read from its benchmark image, and the post does not state a context window or maximum output. · source
Estimate from the version's published specs, benchmarks and reviews, 0-5; scores are only comparable within one criteria year. Scored as launched (Claude Sonnet 4.5, 29 Sep 2025): 200K-token standard window (Anthropic's model page: 200K; a 1M-token configuration existed as a beta, used by Cognition and noted on the launch post, so scored at the standard 200K); price $3 in / $15 out per 1M tokens = $6 blended at 3:1; text and image input. Anthropic: SWE-bench Verified 77.2%, OSWorld 61.4%; its Terminal-Bench figure (Terminus 2 harness) is not Terminal-Bench 4.0, so coding is null. Reasoning null: AA's current page re-scores 4.5 Sonnet on index v4.1 and no launch-version score was opened. Speed null (no tokens/s). Reviews: Willison (preview access), Zvi, CodeRabbit (code-review benchmark), Cognition (vendor, real agent rebuild), Every (writing tests).[1]
My initial impressions were that it felt like a better model for code than GPT-5-Codex, which has been my preferred coding model since it launched a few weeks ago
My tentative evaluation is a qualified yes. This is likely a big leap in some ways. If I had to pick one 'best coding model in the world' right now it would be Sonnet 4.5.
Sonnet 4.5 gets you close to Opus-level performance at a fraction of the price, making it a pragmatic sweet spot for teams reviewing code at scale.
With Sonnet 4.5, we're seeing the biggest leap since Sonnet 3.6 (the model that was used with Devin's GA): planning performance is up 18%, end-to-end eval scores up 12%, and multi-hour sessions are dramatically faster and more reliable.
Then Anthropic dropped Sonnet 4.5, and within 48 hours my workflow collapsed from two chat interfaces into one.
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 is probably the "best coding model in the world" (at least for now) · Sep 29, 2025 | 0.80 |
|---|---|
| Rebuilding Devin for Claude Sonnet 4.5: Lessons and Challenges · Sep 29, 2025 | 0.80 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 Is A Very Good Model · Oct 1, 2025 | 0.80 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5: Better performance but a paradox · Oct 3, 2025 | 0.70 |
| We Tested Claude Sonnet 4.5 for Writing and Editing · Oct 23, 2025 | 0.80 |
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Sonnet 4 | GPT-5 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic coding (SWE-bench Verified) | 77.2% / 82.0% with parallel test-time compute | 74.5% / 79.4% with parallel test-time compute | 72.7% / 80.2% with parallel test-time compute | 72.8% (GPT-5) / 74.5% (GPT-5-Codex) | 67.2% |
| Agentic terminal coding (Terminal-Bench) | 50.0% | 46.5% | 36.4% | 43.8% | 25.3% |
| Agentic tool use (τ2-bench), retail | 86.2% | 86.8% | 83.8% | 81.1% | — |
| Agentic tool use (τ2-bench), airline | 70.0% | 63.0% | 63.0% | 62.6% | — |
| Agentic tool use (τ2-bench), telecom | 98.0% | 71.5% | 49.6% | 96.7% | — |
| Computer use (OSWorld) | 61.4% | 44.4% | 42.2% | — | — |
| High school math competition (AIME 2025) | 100% (python) / 87.0% (no tools) | 78.0% | 70.5% | 99.6% (python) / 94.6% (no tools) | 88.0% |
| Graduate-level reasoning (GPQA Diamond) | 83.4% | 81.0% | 76.1% | 85.7% | 86.4% |
| Multilingual Q&A (MMMLU) | 89.1% | 89.5% | 86.5% | 89.4% | — |
| Visual reasoning (MMMU validation) | 77.8% | 77.1% | 74.4% | 84.2% | 82.0% |
| Financial analysis (Finance Agent) | 55.3% | 50.9% | 44.5% | 46.9% | 29.4% |