Sansa Bench: Sonnet 4.6 High Reasoning Overall 0.733, Currently Ranked 4th

One-sentence takeaway

Sansa Bench's current overall leaderboard records Claude-Sonnet-4.6 Reasoning High at 0.733, tied with/just behind Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview Reasoning Low, below Opus 5 / 4.8 high reasoning; it is suitable for assessing overall capability with reasoning enabled, not suitable for directly citing old scores from Reddit posts from six months ago.

Test environment

• Scale: Page states 103 models tested, Updated Aug 19, 2026.

• Overall score: Equal-weight average across capabilities; scoring includes exact match, numeric match, code execution, LLM judges.

• Current Top 5 (Overall):

  1. Claude-Opus-5 Reasoning High 0.798

  2. Claude-Opus-4.8 Reasoning High 0.785

  3. Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview Reasoning High 0.747

  4. Claude-Sonnet-4.6 Reasoning High 0.733

  5. Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview Reasoning Low 0.733

• Method entry points: Inspiration & Acknowledgments, Compare Models, Model Analysis.

Inputs/configuration

The overall leaderboard displays the Reasoning High variant. The homepage does not list Sonnet 4.6 Reasoning None's current score on the first screen. Private question banks rotate, making it hard for models to game the benchmark; this also means Overall scores from different dates cannot be treated as the same test.

Results data

Current page can be cited directly:

• Claude Sonnet 4.6 Reasoning High: Overall 0.733.

Historical snapshot (must not be mixed with the above): Around February 2026, an r/LLMDevs post claimed its private benchmark (later linked to the same Sansa methodology page) at that time showed:

• Sonnet 4.6 reasoning off: 0.648, above GPT-5.2 low reasoning 0.604

• Sonnet 4.6 high reasoning: 0.719, tied for top with Gemini 3 Pro Preview at the time, above GPT-5.2 high 0.649

• hallucination resistance 0.921; social calibration 0.905; error detection 0.848

• weaker in hard science than Gemini 3 Pro (philosophy 0.767 vs 0.900, chemistry 0.710 vs 0.839, economics 0.750 vs 0.812)

• sycophancy resistance 0.716, below Sonnet 4.5 high's 0.755

Some in that Reddit thread questioned that the post "reads very much like AI" and reported many actual hallucinations; the author also attached https://trysansa.com/benchmark and https://docs.sansaml.com/. When citing historical breakdowns, you must label the post date, and the current overall leaderboard no longer shows 0.719.

Conclusion

With high reasoning enabled, Sonnet 4.6 still enters Sansa's overall top five, but newer Opus models have opened a gap. Suitable as a candidate for those who need reliability and can accept high reasoning cost. If reasoning is disabled, do not use the current homepage's 0.733; open that model's None/Low row separately or run the same methodology yourself.

Limitations

• Question banks rotate; scores across months cannot be directly subtracted.

• Homepage Top 5 only guarantees Reasoning High Overall; capability breakdowns should be taken from Model Analysis; this collection did not expand each capability table on the full page.

• The Reddit old post's 0.921 hallucination resistance and other breakdowns were not reproduced on the overall leaderboard's first screen on 2026-08-20; they cannot be treated as current official numbers.

• LLM judges introduce evaluator model bias.

Reproduction steps

1. Open https://trysansa.com/benchmark, record the page Updated date and the model row's Reasoning tier.

2. If breakdowns are needed, enter that model's Model Analysis and export hallucination, sycophancy, science, and other capabilities.

3. Fix claude-sonnet-4-6 at reasoning off/high; do not mix with Opus 5's High on one "Sonnet capability" table.

4. If comparing against the Reddit old post, separately create a "2026-02 snapshot" column; do not overwrite the current 0.733.