Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Jamba 1.7 Mini
Wins 6 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 19 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Sonnet 4.53 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up30Claude Sonnet 4.53 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Sonnet 4.52 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Claude Sonnet 4.51 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Sonnet 4.51 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Sonnet 4.51 of 1 test
Agents, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Sonnet 4.5 pulls ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+56.3points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+51.2points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+46points ahead
Where Jamba 1.7 Mini pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 19 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5
- SciCodeClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 36.445.79.3+36.4
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 35.635.60+35.6
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.5
- GPQA DiamondClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 51.283.432.2+51.2
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 13.417.84.4+13.4
- CritPtClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 1.11.10+1.1
FactsClaude Sonnet 4.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 4650.94.9+46
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 21.632.911.3+21.6
- Vectara HHEM hallucination ratelower is betterClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 2.71214.7+2.7
Long documentsClaude Sonnet 4.5
- AA-LCRClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 56.372.316+56.3
Following instructionsClaude Sonnet 4.5
- IFBenchClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 25.957.331.4+25.9
Other results8 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 73-0.1-73.1+73
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 65.578.112.6+65.5
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 4952.13.1+49
- AA IntelligenceClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 15.520.75.2+15.5
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 13.317.54.2+13.3
- vectara_answer_rateJamba 1.7 Mini by 3.595.699.1+3.5
- vectara_factual_consistencyClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 2.78885.3+2.7
- vectara_avg_summary_lengthtie127.8136.4tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Jamba 1.7 Mini?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins all six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Jamba 1.7 Mini wins none.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.5. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Jamba 1.7 Mini wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 19 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 8 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.