Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-5.6
Which one, when — curated verdict, not a benchmark table
These two are close on shape — both take text and image in, return text, cap output at 128000 tokens, and offer roughly the same context (1000000 for claude-sonnet-5, 1050000 for gpt-5.6) with thinking that can be switched off — so the real split is the rate card. claude-sonnet-5 runs $2 input and $10 output against $5 and $30 for gpt-5.6, making the OpenAI model 2.5x the input and 3x the output cost, with cache reads at $0.5 versus $0.2. Pick claude-sonnet-5 for high-volume chat, code and tool work; reach for gpt-5.6 when you specifically want OpenAI's stack or its slightly later February 2026 cutoff.
Pricing
| Claude Sonnet 5 | GPT-5.6 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $2 | $5 | 0.4× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $10 | $30 | 0.33× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.2 | $0.5 | 0.4× |
| Cache write | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | no separate charge | — |
Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.
Where they sit — input price per 1M tokens across all 63 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| Claude Sonnet 5 | GPT-5.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool use | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | configurable |
| Structured output | yes | yes |
| Prompt caching | explicit (you mark the prefix) | implicit (automatic) |
| Cache lifetime | 5m default, 1h option | 5–10m, up to 1h |
| Minimum cached prefix | 1024 tokens | 1024 tokens |
Specs
| Claude Sonnet 5 | GPT-5.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-06-30 | 2026-07-09 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-01 | 2026-02 |
| Context window | 1M | 1.1M |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Thinking parameter |
| reasoning.effort |
| Accepted values | thinking.type
effort
"enabled" returns 400 | reasoning.effort
|
| Default | thinking on (adaptive) effort
| medium |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Sonnet 5 · GPT-5.6
One prompt, both models — measured through the gateway
Claude Sonnet 5 passed · 3 sentences
Reasoning mode works by having the model generate extended internal "thinking" steps before producing its final answer, and since we're billed on total tokens, that hidden reasoning text adds significantly to what we pay for—even though you never see it in the output. This is different from simply getting longer visible responses; the model is essentially "showing its work" behind the scenes, and complex prompts can trigger thousands of extra reasoning tokens per request. The upside is improved accuracy on complex tasks, but if we want to control costs, we should selectively enable reasoning only for queries that truly need it, rather than applying it universally.
out 194 tok latency 4.3 s
GPT-5.6 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model generate many additional internal tokens before producing an answer, so each request consumes substantially more compute. Those reasoning tokens are billed even though they are not visible to users, and longer processing can also increase tool calls, retries, and output length. The bill doubled because our cost per request rose, not necessarily because usage volume increased; we can control it by limiting reasoning effort and routing simpler tasks to cheaper models.
out 126 tok (+30 thinking) latency 3.0 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences — countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
Claude Sonnet 5 passed · 8/8 cases
## The Bug The function has two related off-by-one issues rooted in the same cause: `cur` and `best` are initialized to `0` instead of `1`, treating run lengths as the number of *matches* between adjacent elements rather than the number of *elements* in the run. This means a single-element input never enters the loop (since `range(1, 1)` is empty) and returns `0` instead of the correct answer of `1`. It also means that for any input, the run length is undercounted by exactly one — a run of 3 equal elements only produces 2 "match" increments, so `best` ends up as 2 instead of 3. The claim that it "misses runs that end at the last index" is actually a symptom of this same undercount: the logic does update `best` correctly on every iteration (including the last), but because it's counting matches instead of elements, the final reported value is always one less than the true longest run. […]
out 536 tok latency 7.1 s
GPT-5.6 passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: best = max(best, cur) cur = 1 return max(best, cur) ``` The original code counted equal *transitions* rather than items, so a run of one had length `0`, a run of three had length `2`, and tracking from zero caused the off-by-one error. The corrected version starts each run at length `1`, resets to `1` when the value changes, and performs a final `max` after the loop so a run ending at the last element is included; an empty input still returns `0`.
out 277 tok (+93 thinking) latency 4.2 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
Claude Sonnet 5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11.5, "guidance": null } ```
out 348 tok latency 5.3 s
GPT-5.6 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" }
out 179 tok (+118 thinking) latency 3.7 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
Claude Sonnet 5 passed · 123 words, 0 banned, 1 question
## Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching We're rolling out a new caching layer for our API gateway that works across every major LLM provider you connect through it. Instead of resending identical prompts and paying full price each time, the gateway recognizes repeated requests and serves cached responses in milliseconds—regardless of whether you're routing to OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google. What does this mean for your bill and your latency? Both drop, often significantly, especially for teams running high-volume, repetitive workloads like customer support bots or batch content generation. The cache is configurable per route, with adjustable TTLs and invalidation rules, so you stay in control of freshness versus cost. Available now for all Pro and Enterprise plans. Check your dashboard to enable it today.
out 259 tok latency 4.8 s
GPT-5.6 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today we are introducing Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that stores reusable prompt prefixes and serves them across supported model providers. By recognizing identical system instructions, tools, examples, and context blocks, Prompt Cache reduces repeated input processing, lowers latency, and helps control token costs without changing application code. Teams can configure retention windows, cache keys, provider routing, encryption, and regional storage policies from one dashboard or API. What happens when a preferred provider is unavailable? The gateway can route requests to another provider while reusing eligible cached content, preserving performance and consistency. Built-in metrics report hit rates, savings, latency, and provider usage, while audit logs support governance. Prompt Cache is available today in public preview for all customers.
out 628 tok (+473 thinking) latency 7.3 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below — the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="claude-sonnet-5",
# model="gpt-5.6", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "claude-sonnet-5",
// model: "gpt-5.6", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "claude-sonnet-5",
# "model": "gpt-5.6", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "claude-sonnet-5",
// Model: "gpt-5.6", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("claude-sonnet-5")
// .model("gpt-5.6") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5 or GPT-5.6?
Claude Sonnet 5 is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($2 vs $5, 2.5× apart). Other rows may point the other way — the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test Claude Sonnet 5 against GPT-5.6 without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key — switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-5.6 support prompt caching?
Yes — both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.