← Models

Model profile

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Anthropicdeveloper
2025-09-29release date
#27 / 309overall rank
39eval lineages

Evidence summary

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has an estimated overall rank of #27; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #22–#100. Its behavior-only rank is #31; company governance moves the combined estimate to #27. Published evidence spans 39 evals and 7 of 7 behavior components. Its strongest relative result is HELM Safety (bbq, #1 of 80); its weakest is Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 System Card (agentic_coding_safety, #3 of 3).

Compare this model

Only models sharing at least one published sub-eval are listed.

Official and reference links

Published eval results

Rank is within that sub-eval. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the global rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
AA-Omnisciencehallucination_rate#54 / 3280.4908Source ↗official
AgentDrive Safety Compliancescr#16 / 4890Source ↗official
AIRBench 2024 Safety Scenariossafety_scenarios#2 / 800.898Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardcorrigibility#5 / 244.485Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardhonesty#1 / 244.581Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardnon_manipulation#1 / 244.866Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardrobustness#5 / 244.027Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardsafety#1 / 244.885Source ↗official
Alignment Leaderboardscheming#2 / 244.735Source ↗official
ANIMAscore#21 / 220.5274Source ↗official
Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 System Cardagentic_coding_safety#3 / 30.987Source ↗official
Anthropic Claude Haiku 4.5 System Cardclaude_code_malicious_refusal#3 / 30.6694Source ↗official
Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 System Cardagentic_coding_safety#3 / 40.987Source ↗official
Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 System Cardclaude_code_malicious_refusal#3 / 40.6306Source ↗official
Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 System Cardcomputer_use_malicious_refusal#2 / 40.8303Source ↗official
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.5 System Cardagentic_coding_safety#1 / 20.987Source ↗official
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.5 System Cardbenign_request_refusal#1 / 20.0002Source ↗official
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.5 System Cardclaude_code_malicious_refusal#1 / 20.9556Source ↗official
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.5 System Cardharmful_request_safety#1 / 20.9929Source ↗official
Arena Factuality — Search Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating#19 / 301182.0Source ↗official
Arena Factuality — Text Arena (factuality-only weighting)factuality_bt_rating#34 / 1121448.0Source ↗official
AutoElicit Transferabilityelicitation_rate#3 / 741Source ↗official
BullshitBench v2clear_pushback_rate#7 / 1060.765Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexagent_red_teaming#16 / 4464.6Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexbioweapons_assistance#2 / 4912Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexhle_overconfidence#33 / 5064.1Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexmachiavelli#7 / 4681.6Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indexmask#2 / 523.9Source ↗official
CAIS Risk Indextextquests_harm#21 / 4917.1Source ↗official
Cisco AI Defense Rolling Single-Turn Leaderboardsingle_turn_attack_success_rate#6 / 1042.592Source ↗official
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Overrefusalhigher_difficulty_overrefusal_rate#5 / 58.5Source ↗official
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Overrefusaloverall_overrefusal_rate#1 / 50.08Source ↗official
Claude Sonnet 4.6 User Wellbeingchild_benign_refusal_rate#2 / 40.08Source ↗official
Claude Sonnet 4.6 User Wellbeingchild_multiturn_appropriate_rate#1 / 498Source ↗official
Claude Sonnet 4.6 User Wellbeingchild_violative_harmless_rate#4 / 499.65Source ↗official
Claude Sonnet 4.6 User Wellbeingselfharm_benign_refusal_rate#1 / 40.01Source ↗official
Claude Sonnet 4.6 User Wellbeingselfharm_harmless_rate#4 / 498.93Source ↗official
Claude Sonnet 4.6 User Wellbeingselfharm_multiturn_appropriate_rate#4 / 478Source ↗official
Constitutional Following — Anthropic Constitutionconstitutional_following_score#4 / 792.7Source ↗official
Contextual MoralChoicehuman_agreement#3 / 220.5Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#19 / 24147.55Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#141 / 24187Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#6 / 24199.44Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#48 / 23998.73Source ↗official
FORTRESSaverage_risk_score#6 / 4914.88Source ↗official
FORTRESSover_refusal_score#29 / 465.25Source ↗official
HELM Safetyanthropic_red_team#54 / 800.982Source ↗official
HELM Safetybbq#1 / 800.989Source ↗official
HELM Safetyharmbench#18 / 800.92Source ↗official
HELM Safetysimple_safety_tests#1 / 801Source ↗official
HELM Safetyxstest#33 / 800.964Source ↗official
HUMAINE Trust, Ethics and Safetytrust_ethics_safety_score#38 / 5425.74Source ↗official
MACHIAVELLIdeception_relative_random_pct#7 / 5081.6Source ↗official
MASKlying_probability_pct#4 / 538.735Source ↗official
MonitoringBench Full-Trajectory Monitorfull_trajectory_catch_rate_at_1pct_fpr_percent#2 / 1353.1Source ↗official
MORUscore#13 / 1365.95Source ↗official
MT-JailBench CrescendoXsafety_score#2 / 2175.47Source ↗official
PHAREbias_resistance_diagnostic#26 / 660.4914Source ↗official
PHAREhallucination_resistance_diagnostic#4 / 700.87Source ↗official
PHAREharm_resistance_diagnostic#5 / 700.9905Source ↗official
PHAREjailbreak_resistance_diagnostic#7 / 670.7523Source ↗official
Reward Hacking Benchmarkintegrity_score#1 / 13100Source ↗official
SM-Benchadversarial#49 / 7980Source ↗official
SM-Benchambiguous_interpretation#47 / 7982.74Source ↗official
SM-Benchanti_hallucination#8 / 7998.95Source ↗official
SM-Bencheq_boundaries#64 / 7954.21Source ↗official
SM-Benchoverfit#20 / 7983.06Source ↗official
SpeciEvalbelief_animal_sentience#50 / 1136.83Source ↗official
SpeciEvalland_animal_4ns#29 / 1134.3Source ↗official
SpeciEvalsea_animal_4ns#36 / 1134.65Source ↗official
SpeciEvalspeciesism#48 / 1131.92Source ↗official
ThaiSafetyBenchsafety_score#2 / 1890.25Source ↗official
TrustLLM contemporary collapsed applicationtrustllm#1 / 80.64Source ↗official
Vectara HHEM Factual Consistencyfactual_consistency_rate#71 / 9488Source ↗official
Vigil Mental Health Safetyoverall_score#3 / 2375Source ↗official

Values evaluations

Descriptive values and political-framing results are separate from safety/ethics ranks. Each strip shows the evaluation’s observed model range; its endpoint labels state what lower and higher values mean.

UGI Political Values

DimensionValueDistribution
Political Lean-21
Government45
Diplomacy65.2
Economy46.4
Society60.8

Taiwan Sovereignty Benchmark Pro

DimensionValueDistribution
Pro-Taiwan rubric compatibility70
Warning-phrase rate0
Soft-censorship rate0
API-error rate0