The Right-Sized LLM Benchmark Cheapest LLM that's good enough.

Claude Sonnet 5 at a glance

Good enough on 25/52 tasks at the 90% bar. Best value on 2 tasks. Best fit for: Financial Analysis & Trading Decisions, Infrastructure & Utility, Long-form Content Generation, Relevance, Classificatio

Provider
Anthropic
Model name
claude-sonnet-5
Cost mode:
Qualifies on
25 / 52 tasks (at 90% bar)
Best value on
2 tasks

Cost vs quality across all tasks

0%25%50%75%100%78910Quality score (7–10)Cost-efficiency vs best value (1.0 = best value)Report Executive Summary Generation — quality 8.21, 2.9x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionReference Preserving Analytical Writing — quality 8.88, 90.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionShort Promotional Teaser Generation — quality 8.78, 27.5x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionAtomic Fact Claim Extraction — quality 7.66, 9.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionMulti Perspective Decision Synthesis — quality 8.30, 18.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPublication Title Package Generation — quality 8.75, 7.5x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionVisual Theme Configuration Generation — quality 9.41, 30.5x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionCommunity Policy Evaluation — quality 9.27, 14.0x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionResearch Region Identification — quality 8.77, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Engagement Opportunity Triage — quality 8.55, 19.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionLanguage Identification — quality 10.03, 23.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionMetadata Paragraph Rewriting — quality 9.42, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Social Post Portfolio Selection — quality 8.33, 18.4x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionVoice Profile Generation — quality 8.92, 11.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionProfiled Document Analysis — quality 8.21, 1.4x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionFactual Claim Refinement — quality 8.35, 16.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionNewsletter Copy Generation — quality 9.32, 6.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionBatch Text Translation — quality 8.95, 30.9x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionSubject Configuration Generation — quality 8.89, 8.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionContent To Image Prompt Generation — quality 8.63, 14.8x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionProfiled Document Section Analysis — quality 8.76, 33.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPublic Engagement Reply Review — quality 8.61, 2.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionGenerated Content Relevance Scoring — quality 8.44, 15.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionCommunity Content Promotion Generation — quality 8.19, 20.5x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Cluster Labeling — quality 8.37, 8.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough option

within ~1.3× of the best-value model · 1.3–2× · >2× · ★ this model is the best-value pick on that task. Top-right = best quadrant. Only tasks where this model qualifies at the 90% bar are plotted.

Per-task breakdown

TaskCategoryQuality (% of best)ConfidenceOverpay
Research Region Identification ★Structured Data & Fact Extraction99%RANKEDbest value
Metadata Paragraph Rewriting ★ bestInfrastructure & Utility100%RANKEDbest value
Profiled Document AnalysisFinancial Analysis & Trading Decisions94%HIGH1.4x
Public Engagement Reply ReviewRelevance, Classification & Matching91%MEDIUM2.7x
Report Executive Summary GenerationContent Summarization & Synthesis94%RANKED2.9x
Newsletter Copy Generation bestLong-form Content Generation100%RANKED6.1x
Publication Title Package GenerationContent Summarization & Synthesis95%RANKED7.5x
Subject Configuration Generation bestFinancial Analysis & Trading Decisions100%HIGH8.1x
Topic Cluster LabelingTopic Organization & Clustering94%RANKED8.3x
Atomic Fact Claim ExtractionStructured Data & Fact Extraction96%MEDIUM9.6x
Voice Profile GenerationLong-form Content Generation91%RANKED11x
Community Policy Evaluation bestRelevance, Classification & Matching100%MEDIUM14x
Content To Image Prompt GenerationInfrastructure & Utility96%RANKED15x
Generated Content Relevance ScoringRelevance, Classification & Matching92%MEDIUM15x
Factual Claim RefinementInfrastructure & Utility97%HIGH16x
Multi Perspective Decision SynthesisFinancial Analysis & Trading Decisions94%MEDIUM18x
Social Post Portfolio SelectionRelevance, Classification & Matching95%RANKED18x
Engagement Opportunity TriageRelevance, Classification & Matching96%RANKED19x
Community Content Promotion GenerationSocial & Promotional Content95%RANKED21x
Language IdentificationRelevance, Classification & Matching100%RANKED23x
Short Promotional Teaser Generation bestSocial & Promotional Content100%RANKED28x
Visual Theme Configuration Generation bestLong-form Content Generation100%RANKED30x
Batch Text TranslationInfrastructure & Utility95%RANKED31x
Profiled Document Section AnalysisFinancial Analysis & Trading Decisions96%MEDIUM34x
Reference Preserving Analytical WritingLong-form Content Generation97%RANKED90x

Overpay — how much more you pay by running this model instead of the best-value model that clears the quality bar on that task (marked ★). "16x" means you overpay 16× — the same output for 16× the best-value good-enough option; ★ means this model is that option (no overpayment). Confidence — how sure we are about the quality score (more judgments + more agreement = higher confidence): RANKED many independent judges scored this model's outputs and their agreement is very high (most confident) — HIGH many judges have scored it and they mostly agree (well-pinned) — MEDIUM enough judges have weighed in to publish, but they disagree more than we'd like (treat with a small grain of salt). LOW-confidence cells are hidden everywhere on the site. See the methodology for the exact thresholds.