Claude Sonnet 5 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5
Quale scegliere e quando
claude-sonnet-5 e claude-sonnet-5-5 hanno lo stesso prezzo di $2 per milione di token di input, $10 per milione di output e $0.2 per le letture della cache, ed entrambi condividono un contesto di 1000000 token, un output massimo di 128000, input testo-più-immagine e gli stessi flag per chat, code, thinking, tools e reasoning. Le vere differenze riguardano la generazione e il controllo: claude-sonnet-5-5 è la release più recente (2026-09-28, knowledge cutoff 2026-06), mentre claude-sonnet-5 (2026-06-30, cutoff 2026-01) ti permette di disattivare il thinking. Scegli claude-sonnet-5 quando hai bisogno di risposte senza thinking, altrimenti prendi claude-sonnet-5-5 per il cutoff più recente senza costi aggiuntivi.
Benchmark
Claude Sonnet 5.5: il fornitore non ha pubblicato risultati di benchmark.
Dati pubblicati dai fornitori: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic DeepSeek Google Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Prezzi
| Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M token | $2 | $2 | = |
| Output / 1M token | $10 | $10 | = |
| Lettura cache / 1M token | $0.2 | $0.2 | = |
| Scrittura in cache | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | - |
Le tariffe provengono dal catalogo live al momento della build; la pagina di ciascun modello riporta la scheda attuale.
Dove si posizionano - prezzo di input per 1M di token rispetto a tutti gli 76 modelli chat con questa unità di fatturazione (scala logaritmica)
Capacità
| Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Utilizzo dei tool | sì | sì |
| Controllo del ragionamento | configurabile | sempre attivo |
| Output strutturato | sì | sì |
| Prompt caching | esplicito (contrassegni il prefisso) | esplicito (contrassegni il prefisso) |
| Durata della cache | 5m default, 1h option | 5m default, 1h option |
| Prefisso minimo in cache | 1024 token | 1024 token |
Specifiche
| Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Modalità di input | testo immagine | testo immagine |
| Modalità di output | testo | testo |
| Rilascio | 2026-06-30 | 2026-09-28 |
| Cutoff di conoscenza | 2026-01 | 2026-06 |
| Finestra di contesto | 1M | 1M |
| Output massimo | 128K | 128K |
| Parametro thinking |
| thinking.type |
| Valori accettati | thinking.type
effort
"enabled" returns 400 | thinking.type
|
| Predefinito | thinking on (adaptive) effort
| adaptive, effort high |
Le specifiche sono trascritte dalla documentazione di ciascun fornitore; una riga che un fornitore non pubblica viene omessa anziché essere dedotta. Fonti complete: Claude Sonnet 5 · Claude Sonnet 5.5
Un solo prompt, entrambi i modelli - misurati attraverso il gateway
Claude Sonnet 5 superato · 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 latenza 4.3 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model "think" before it answers, and that internal thinking is generated as extra text (reasoning tokens) that we are billed for at the same rate as output tokens, even though users never see it. Output tokens also cost several times more than input tokens, so a single request that used to produce a short answer can now generate many times more billable text behind the scenes. Because our request volume and prompts didn't change, the doubling comes almost entirely from this hidden thinking, and we can bring it down by limiting reasoning effort, turning it off for simple tasks, and reserving it for the workloads where the accuracy gain justifies the cost.
out 205 tok latenza 3.6 s
Rispetto dell'istruzione (esattamente tre frasi - contabili), adattamento al pubblico (registro da CFO), e il divario di fatturazione del pensiero nascosto che i contatori di token qui sotto rivelano.
Claude Sonnet 5 superato · 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 latenza 7.1 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 8/8 cases
**The bug:** `cur` counts the number of *adjacent equal pairs* rather than the number of items in the run. A run of length k contains only k−1 such pairs, so every result is one too small. The counter also starts at 0 and the loop starts at index 1, so a single-element list never updates `best` and returns 0 instead of 1. (An empty list should return 0.) In addition, `cur` resets to 0 on a mismatch, when it should reset to 1, because the item at `xs[i]` begins a new run of length 1. The claim that it "misses runs ending at the last index" is really the same off-by-one: the final run is counted, but as one less than its true length. Because `best` is updated inside the loop on every extension, the last run isn't skipped. […]
out 444 tok latenza 6.7 s
Se la correzione è davvero giusta (eseguibile), la densità della spiegazione, e l'efficienza in token su un compito delimitato.
Claude Sonnet 5 superato · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11.5, "guidance": null } ```
out 348 tok latenza 5.3 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 5/5 fields, guidance null
Here is the extracted JSON: ```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on the choices: - **quarter**: The text says "September quarter" without specifying a fiscal year or Q-number, so I kept the wording as stated. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text gives "412" for the topline, with no currency or unit stated explicitly. I've taken it as 412 million USD per the field definition, but the text does not confirm that, and the figure is constant-currency. - **growth_pct**: "Eleven and change" means slightly above 11, so 11 is an approximation. The exact figure isn't given. - **guidance**: Guidance is withheld pending the Q4 close, so no guidance is stated, hence null.
out 300 tok latenza 3.5 s
Aderenza allo schema (nessun campo inventato), pressione di allucinazione (guidance è esplicitamente sospesa), e differenze nel percorso di output strutturato.
Claude Sonnet 5 superato · 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 latenza 4.8 s
Claude Sonnet 5.5 superato · 122 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** Your API gateway now caches prompts across every connected LLM provider, whether you route traffic to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or a self-hosted model. Here's how it works: the gateway fingerprints each prompt prefix, stores it centrally, and applies the right provider-specific caching mechanism automatically. When you switch providers or fail over during an outage, your cached context follows you. Early testing shows input token costs dropping by up to 70% on repeated system prompts and long documents, with latency improvements of 40% or more on cache hits. Tired of paying to send the same instructions thousands of times a day? Enable it with one configuration flag. Cache rules, TTLs, and per-team isolation are available in the dashboard today.
out 266 tok latenza 3.8 s
Rispetto dei vincoli (budget di parole, elenco di parole vietate, l'unica domanda), impronta stilistica, e controllo della lunghezza.
Passa dall'uno all'altro con una sola riga
Entrambi gli id sono presenti in ogni scheda qui sotto - la coppia di righe evidenziata è l'unica modifica. Stesso endpoint, stessa chiave, stessa struttura della richiesta.
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="claude-sonnet-5-5", # decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
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: "claude-sonnet-5-5", // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
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": "claude-sonnet-5-5", # decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
"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: "claude-sonnet-5-5", // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
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("claude-sonnet-5-5") // decommenta questa riga, commenta quella sopra
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Qual è più economico, Claude Sonnet 5 o Claude Sonnet 5.5?
Riportano lo stesso valore per input / 1m token ($2), quindi il prezzo non è decisivo in questo caso - vedi le specifiche e le funzionalità di seguito.
Posso fare un A/B test di Claude Sonnet 5 contro Claude Sonnet 5.5 senza due integrazioni?
Sì. Entrambi sono serviti tramite lo stesso endpoint compatibile con OpenAI con una singola chiave API - il passaggio richiede la modifica della stringa del modello in una sola riga, quindi puoi instradare una frazione del traffico verso ciascuno e confrontare direttamente le fatture.
Claude Sonnet 5 e Claude Sonnet 5.5 supportano il prompt caching?
Sì - entrambi fatturano le letture in cache a un prezzo inferiore rispetto alla loro tariffa di input, quindi i carichi di lavoro con warm-prefix costano meno di quanto suggeriscano le tariffe di listino. Le righe esatte per la lettura in cache si trovano nella tabella dei prezzi qui sopra.