When Anthropic released Claude Sonnet 4 on May 22, 2025, AI teams gained access to a model that fundamentally changed agent development economics. 

Unlike previous releases that forced tradeoffs between capability and cost, this model delivers high performance at mid-tier pricing—a combination that's reshaping how enterprises deploy autonomous systems.

Our comprehensive analysis examines Claude Sonnet 4's performance across multiple business domains and multiple agent-specific metrics, revealing both its strengths as a versatile workhorse and the specific scenarios where alternatives might serve better.

Check out our Agent Leaderboard and pick the best LLM for your use case

Claude 4 Sonnet performance heatmap

Claude Sonnet 4 represents a significant evolution in Anthropic's model architecture, introducing hybrid reasoning capabilities that allow the model to toggle between near-instant responses and extended thinking modes.

Released as part of the Claude 4 family alongside the more powerful Opus 4, Sonnet 4 targets the sweet spot between performance and practicality. Claude Sonnet 4 achieves an overall rank of #4 among frontier models tested in our agent leaderboard:

The model demonstrates exceptional tool selection quality (0.95 score), balanced action completion capabilities (0.85), and cost-efficient operation at $0.154 per average session. With an average duration of 66.6 seconds and 2.9 conversation turns, the model optimizes for both speed and thoroughness.

Background research

The model was trained using Constitutional AI principles and extensive human feedback, with particular emphasis on helpful, honest, and harmless behavior.

Claude Sonnet 4's development builds on several key research advances:

• Constitutional AI framework: The foundational approach detailed in Bai et al. (2022) that shapes the model's alignment through principle-based feedback rather than purely human preference learning

• Hybrid reasoning architecture: A novel dual-mode system enabling both standard rapid inference and extended deliberative reasoning, allowing developers to optimize for latency or depth based on task requirements

• Safety evaluation protocols: Comprehensive testing documented in the Claude Opus 4 & Claude Sonnet 4 System Card (May 2025), detailing extensive red-teaming and alignment validation

Is Claude 4 Sonnet suitable for your use case?

Use Claude Sonnet 4 if you need:

• Elite tool selection capabilities: With a 0.920 score, Claude Sonnet 4 excels at choosing the right tools for complex agent workflows, minimizing incorrect API calls and reducing debugging overhead

• Cost-effective agent deployment: At $0.154 per average session, the model delivers frontier capabilities at significantly lower cost than comparable alternatives

• Banking and healthcare domain expertise: Strong specialization scores (0.580 banking, 0.620 healthcare) make it particularly well-suited for regulated industries requiring domain knowledge

• Balanced conversation efficiency: Averages 2.9 turns per session, providing thorough responses without excessive back-and-forth that inflates latency and costs

• Production-ready agent infrastructure: The model's stability across extended sessions makes it reliable for customer-facing applications where consistency matters

Avoid Claude Sonnet 4 if you:

• Require consistently high action completion rates: With a 0.550 action completion score, the model shows moderate performance compared to competitors, potentially requiring additional oversight for mission-critical autonomous actions

• Work primarily in investment or telecom domains: Lower specialization in these sectors (0.490 investment, 0.530 telecom) suggests domain-specific competitors may better serve these verticals

• Need the absolute fastest response times: While 66.6 seconds average duration is competitive, speed-optimized applications may benefit from lighter models

• Depend on single-turn task completion: The 2.9 average turns indicate the model often requires iterative refinement, which may not suit workflows demanding immediate resolution

Claude 4 Sonnet domain performance

Claude Sonnet 4 demonstrates relatively balanced performance across five key business domains, with Healthcare showing the strongest results at 0.620 action completion score. Banking follows closely at 0.580, indicating solid foundational knowledge for financial services applications.

The model's performance pattern reveals a generalist approach rather than deep specialization. Insurance and Telecom both score 0.530, while Investment shows slightly weaker performance at 0.490. This consistency suggests the model draws from broad pre-training rather than domain-specific fine-tuning.

For teams evaluating domain fit, Healthcare and Banking teams will find Claude Sonnet 4 delivers reliable performance with minimal additional prompting or context. Investment-focused applications may require supplementary retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems or fine-tuning to match specialized alternatives.

The relatively narrow performance band across domains (0.490-0.620) indicates the model won't dramatically underperform in any sector, making it a safe default choice for multi-domain enterprises.

Claude 4 Sonnet domain specialization matrix

Action completion 

The domain specialization matrix reveals Claude Sonnet 4's strength distribution across business sectors. Healthcare shows slight positive specialization (warmer color), indicating the model performs marginally better than its baseline when completing actions in medical contexts. 

Banking exhibits near-neutral specialization, suggesting consistent performance without particular advantages.

Healthcare, Insurance, and Telecom cluster around neutral specialization, while Investment shows a slightly negative bias. This pattern aligns with the model's training on diverse web data that oversamples healthcare literature and general business content while underrepresenting specialized financial instruments and telecom technical protocols.

Teams in healthcare can leverage this specialization for clinical documentation, patient communication, and care coordination agents with confidence.

Banking applications benefit from stable, predictable performance. Investment firms should anticipate the need for domain-specific prompt engineering or retrieval systems to compensate for the slight negative bias.

Tool selection quality

Tool selection quality reveals a different specialization pattern. Banking and Telecom demonstrate positive specialization (warmer colors), indicating Claude Sonnet 4 excels at choosing appropriate tools when working within these domains' technical ecosystems. 

Healthcare shows weak negative specialization despite strong action completion, suggesting the model understands medical concepts but struggles slightly with healthcare-specific tool APIs.

This inversion from action completion patterns highlights an important nuance: domain knowledge doesn't automatically translate to tool proficiency. Banking and Telecom benefit from well-structured, standardized APIs that the model navigates effectively.

Healthcare's heterogeneous systems—FHIR servers, EHR APIs, HL7 interfaces—present greater complexity that slightly degrades tool selection accuracy.

For development teams, this means banking and telecom agents can rely on Claude Sonnet 4's tool selection with minimal validation logic. Healthcare implementations should implement stronger tool call validation and potentially limit the tool set to reduce error probability. 

Investment and Insurance fall in neutral territory, requiring standard guardrails without special accommodations.

Claude 4 Sonnet performance gap analysis by domain

Action completion 

Performance gap analysis shows Claude Sonnet 4's action completion consistency across domains. Healthcare leads at approximately 0.65 on the action completion axis, followed by Banking at 0.6.

The narrow interquartile ranges (IQR) indicated by the horizontal lines demonstrate consistent performance within each domain with minimal variance.

Telecom and Insurance cluster in the 0.53 range with similarly tight distributions, while Investment trails at approximately 0.5. The consistent IQR across all domains indicates reliable, predictable behavior—agents won't experience wild performance swings based on domain context.

This consistency matters significantly for enterprise deployments. Multi-domain applications can confidently deploy a single Claude Sonnet 4 configuration across business units without domain-specific tuning.

The narrow variance also simplifies evaluation and quality assurance, as performance baselines remain stable across use cases. Teams can establish universal success thresholds rather than maintaining domain-specific acceptance criteria.

Tool selection quality

Tool selection quality shows dramatically different characteristics. Healthcare clusters around 0.95 with exceptionally narrow variance, indicating near-perfect tool selection reliability. Insurance follows at approximately 0.92, though with slightly wider variance, suggesting occasional tool confusion in complex insurance scenarios.

The key insight: Claude Sonnet 4 excels at choosing the right tool across all domains, even when execution quality varies. This asymmetry suggests the model's tool selection logic operates independently from domain-specific reasoning.

For agentic workflows, this means you can trust Claude Sonnet 4 to invoke appropriate APIs and functions, then focus optimization efforts on improving the inputs and context provided to those tools rather than second-guessing tool selection itself.

Claude 4 Sonnet cost-performance efficiency

Action completion

Claude Sonnet 4 occupies a favorable position in the cost-performance efficiency analysis, sitting squarely in the "High Performance, Low Cost" quadrant. At approximately $0.15 per session with a 0.55 action completion score, the model delivers competitive task completion at a fraction of premium model costs.

The proprietary marker indicates Claude Sonnet 4 represents Anthropic's commercial offering rather than an open-source alternative. Its position below the horizontal cost axis demonstrates pricing efficiency that makes high-volume agent deployments economically viable.

For enterprises processing millions of agent interactions monthly, this cost advantage compounds significantly.

The model serves teams that need reliable performance across diverse tasks without requiring peak optimization on every interaction. This positions Claude Sonnet 4 as an excellent default choice for production agents where consistent good performance outweighs occasional marginal gains from more expensive alternatives.

Tool selection quality

The tool selection quality cost-performance view reveals Claude Sonnet 4's true strength. The model achieves 0.92 tool selection quality—near the top of the benchmark—while maintaining the same low cost position.

This combination creates exceptional value for tool-heavy agent workflows where incorrect function calls create downstream failures.

Tool selection errors compound quickly in multi-step agent processes. A single incorrect tool invocation can derail entire workflows, requiring human intervention and dramatically increasing effective costs.

For teams building complex agents that orchestrate multiple tools and APIs, Claude Sonnet 4's position in the efficiency landscape is compelling. You achieve near-optimal tool selection at a fraction of premium model costs, with minimal tradeoff in execution quality.

Claude 4 Sonnet speed vs. accuracy

Action completion

The speed versus accuracy analysis positions Claude Sonnet 4 in the moderate latency range at 66.6 seconds average duration with 0.55 action completion. This places it in a balanced zone—neither the fastest option nor the slowest, with correspondingly middle-tier accuracy.

The scatter plot reveals an important insight: Claude Sonnet 4 avoids the "slow and inaccurate" quadrant that plagues some models. Its position near the center suggests the model has been optimized for reasonable response times without compromising reliability.

The lack of extreme outliers in either direction indicates consistent performance characteristics.

For production deployments, this predictability matters significantly. Agents built on Claude Sonnet 4 won't exhibit the latency spikes that create poor user experiences or the rushed responses that degrade accuracy.

The 66.6-second average accommodates multi-step reasoning and tool use without creating unacceptable wait times for users. Teams can confidently design user experiences around this latency profile, knowing variance remains manageable.

Tool selection quality

Tool selection quality shows Claude Sonnet 4 maintaining its 0.92 high accuracy with the same 66.6-second duration. This consistency across metrics—achieving near-optimal tool selection without requiring extended deliberation time—demonstrates the model's efficiency in reasoning about tool use.

The "Fast & Accurate" quadrant annotation highlights the target zone for production agents. Claude Sonnet 4 approaches this ideal region, trading slightly slower execution for significantly improved tool selection accuracy compared to faster alternatives.

This tradeoff generally favors reliability in agent workflows where incorrect tool invocations create cascading failures that dwarf latency concerns.

Developers optimizing agent performance should note that tool selection happens early in the execution pipeline. Even with the 66.6-second duration, the actual tool selection decision occurs within the first few seconds, with the remaining time spent on execution and response generation.

This means the high tool selection accuracy doesn't require proportionally longer deliberation—it reflects better reasoning about tool applicability rather than extended computation time.

Claude 4 Sonnet pricing and usage costs

Claude Sonnet 4 maintains consistent pricing with its predecessor, Claude 3 Sonnet, signaling Anthropic's strategy of improving capabilities without increasing costs.

Standard pricing:

• Input tokens: $3 per million tokens (~750,000 words)

• Output tokens: $15 per million tokens

• Context window: 200,000 tokens

• Average session cost: $0.154 (based on our benchmark data)

Cost optimization features:

• Prompt caching: Up to 90% cost reduction for repeated content, particularly valuable for agents with fixed system prompts and tool definitions

• Batch processing: 50% cost savings for non-real-time workloads that can tolerate delayed responses

• Context management: Intelligent token management features reduce unnecessary context inclusion

Economic Comparison:

Claude Sonnet 4's pricing positions it competitively for high-volume agent deployments. At $0.154 per average session across our benchmark scenarios, enterprises processing 1 million agent interactions monthly face approximately $154,000 in compute costs.

With prompt caching for tool definitions and system instructions, real-world costs often drop to $40,000-$60,000 monthly.

For enterprise budget planning, Claude Sonnet 4 offers predictable cost scaling. The mid-tier pricing prevents runaway expenses during traffic spikes while delivering performance that justifies production deployment.

The model's strong tool selection quality (0.920) further improves economic efficiency by reducing failed interactions that require retry logic and human escalation.

Claude 4 Sonnet key capabilities and strengths

Claude Sonnet 4 delivers a powerful combination of advanced reasoning, efficient tool use, and enterprise-ready reliability for agentic applications:

• Hybrid reasoning architecture: Claude Sonnet 4's dual-mode reasoning system enables developers to optimize each interaction. Standard mode delivers near-instant responses for routine queries, while extended thinking mode provides deeper analysis for complex decisions. Agents can dynamically switch between modes based on task complexity, balancing speed and thoroughness.

• Superior tool selection quality: With a 0.920 tool selection score, Claude Sonnet 4 excels at choosing appropriate functions from large tool sets. The model accurately interprets API schemas, understands tool dependencies, and sequences multi-step operations effectively.

• Parallel tool execution: Unlike sequential processors, Claude Sonnet 4 can invoke multiple tools simultaneously when independence permits. For agents querying multiple data sources or triggering parallel workflows, this capability significantly reduces total execution time and improves user experience.

• Enhanced memory capabilities: When provided file system access, Claude Sonnet 4 maintains memory files across sessions. Agents can store user preferences, conversation context, and learned patterns, enabling truly stateful interactions that improve over time.

• Improved instruction following: Claude Sonnet 4 demonstrates 65% fewer instances of taking shortcuts or exploiting loopholes compared to Claude 3.7. Agents follow specified procedures more faithfully, reducing unexpected behaviors that undermine trust in autonomous systems.

• Domain versatility: Balanced performance across Healthcare (0.620), Banking (0.580), Insurance (0.530), Telecom (0.530), and Investment (0.490) makes Claude Sonnet 4 suitable for multi-domain enterprises. Single model deployments can serve diverse business units without domain-specific fine-tuning.

• Cost efficiency: At $0.154 per average session with opportunities for 90% reduction through prompt caching, Claude Sonnet 4 enables cost-effective agent deployments at enterprise scale.

• Production stability: Consistent performance characteristics with narrow variance across domains provide predictable behavior. Agents maintain reliability across varying contexts, simplifying quality assurance and reducing unexpected failures that require human intervention.

Claude 4 Sonnet limitations and weaknesses

While highly capable, Claude Sonnet 4 has specific constraints that teams should evaluate against their use case requirements:

• Moderate action completion performance: With a 0.550 action completion score, Claude Sonnet 4 trails competitors in successfully executing complete workflows. Agents may require additional attempts or human oversight for complex multi-step operations, increasing effective latency and operational overhead.

• Investment domain underperformance: The 0.490 specialization score for Investment indicates weaker knowledge of financial instruments, portfolio analysis, and market dynamics.

• Multi-turn conversation patterns: Averaging 2.9 turns per session suggests Claude Sonnet 4 often requires iterative refinement to complete tasks. While thorough, this pattern may frustrate users expecting immediate resolution and increases total interaction time compared to models that resolve queries in fewer exchanges.

• Healthcare tool selection gap: Despite strong action completion in healthcare (0.620), tool selection shows slight negative specialization in this domain. The model understands medical concepts but struggles with healthcare's fragmented API landscape. Implementations should include robust tool call validation.

• Not industry-leading on benchmarks: While competitive, Claude Sonnet 4 doesn't achieve top rankings on traditional benchmarks like MMLU or coding assessments. Teams requiring absolute peak performance on specialized tasks may find more powerful alternatives better suited to their needs.

• Context window constraints: The 200,000 token context window, while substantial, can become limiting for agents processing extensive documentation or maintaining very long conversation histories. Long-running workflows may require context management strategies that explicitly prune older information.

• Extended thinking mode costs: When agents utilize extended thinking for complex reasoning, token consumption and latency both increase. The economic benefits of Claude Sonnet 4's base pricing diminish for workflows that frequently require deep deliberation, potentially making premium models more cost-effective for specific use cases.

• Safety classifier false positives: Claude Sonnet 4 includes CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) safety classifiers that occasionally flag benign content. While false positive rates have improved significantly, agents working in scientific domains or technical discussions may experience unexpected interruptions requiring fallback to alternative models.

Ship reliable AI applications and agents with Galileo

The journey to reliable AI agents requires systematic evaluation across the entire development lifecycle. With the right framework and tools, you can confidently deploy AI applications and agents that deliver consistent value while avoiding costly failures.

Here’s how Galileo provides you with a comprehensive evaluation and monitoring infrastructure:

• Automated quality guardrails in CI/CD: Galileo integrates directly into your development workflow, running comprehensive evaluations on every code change and blocking releases that fail quality thresholds

• Multi-dimensional response evaluation: With Galileo's Luna-2 evaluation models, you can assess every output across dozens of quality dimensions—correctness, toxicity, bias, adherence—at 97% lower cost than traditional LLM-based evaluation approaches

• Real-time runtime protection: Galileo's Agent Protect scans every prompt and response in production, blocking harmful outputs before they reach users while maintaining detailed compliance logs for audit requirements

• Intelligent failure detection: Galileo’s Insights Engine automatically clusters similar failures, surfaces root-cause patterns, and recommends fixes, reducing debugging time while building institutional knowledge

• Human-in-the-loop optimization: Galileo's Continuous Learning via Human Feedback (CLHF) transforms expert reviews into reusable evaluators, accelerating iteration while maintaining quality standards

Get started with Galileo today and discover how a comprehensive evaluation can elevate your agent development and achieve reliable AI systems that users trust.