Skip to main content
AI Choice Engine

Model comparison

Base 1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5

Base44 against Anthropic, compared on context, price, and attributed benchmark results.

Recorded profile verification October 2, 2026Individual provider fields may changeEvidence confidence: Insufficient data — see receipts below

Base44

Base 1

Balanced

vs

Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Balanced

AI model capability comparison
SpecificationBase 1Claude Sonnet 5.5
ProviderBase44Anthropic
TierBalancedBalanced
Context windowNot verifiedUnverified1M
Max outputNot verifiedUnverified128K
Input / 1M tokensNot verifiedUnverified$2
Output / 1M tokensNot verifiedUnverified$10
WeightsNot verifiedUnverifiedClosed
ParametersNot verifiedUnverifiedNot verifiedUnverified
Reasoning levelsNot verifiedUnverifiedlow, medium, high, xhigh, max
Modalitiestexttext, image
API model idNot verifiedUnverifiedclaude-sonnet-5-5
ReleasedNot verifiedUnverifiedSeptember 28, 2026
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [max] · source date Claude Sonnet 5.5: 2026-10-01Not verifiedUnverified56
Terminal-Bench 4.0 [max] · source date Claude Sonnet 5.5: 2026-10-01Not verifiedUnverified63.6
Terminal-Bench 4.0 · source date Claude Sonnet 5.5: 2026-10-01Not verifiedUnverified70.6
CursorBench 4.0 [max] · source date Claude Sonnet 5.5: 2026-10-01Not verifiedUnverified55.5
Humanity's Last Exam · source date Claude Sonnet 5.5: 2026-10-01Not verifiedUnverified64.5
FrontierCode 1.1 (Main) [xhigh] · source date Claude Sonnet 5.5: 2026-10-01Not verifiedUnverified52.1
OSWorld 2.1 · source date Claude Sonnet 5.5: 2026-10-01Not verifiedUnverified80.1

Dates beside benchmark scores refer to the linked source’s publication or capture date unless that source explicitly states when it measured the result. A shared URL alone does not establish comparable runs; unverified setups are marked. Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.

Benchmark receipts

Where each score comes from, and how far it can be compared across models.

  • Source date2026-10-01
  • Source date2026-10-01
  • Source date2026-10-01
    Anthropic (vendor-reported) (with tools)

    Frontier-knowledge ceiling: extremely hard multi-domain questions written to be near-impossible without deep expertise.

    Comparable with caveatSubset/tool configurations (text-only vs with-tools) differ between vendors and materially change scores; must match configuration to compare.

  • Source date2026-10-01
  • Source date2026-10-01
    Artificial Analysis (independent, mini-swe-agent)

    Agentic terminal work: long multi-step tasks executed in a sandboxed shell environment.

    Comparable with caveatDo not directly compare scores across Terminal-Bench versions: 4.0 revises and prunes the 3.0 task set and changes environment resources, requiring fresh trials. Within 4.0, harness, time limit, tools, sampling and resource settings must match; maintainer-agent and Artificial Analysis runs are not interchangeable.

  • Source date2026-10-01
    Anthropic (vendor-reported)

    Agentic terminal work: long multi-step tasks executed in a sandboxed shell environment.

    Comparable with caveatDo not directly compare scores across Terminal-Bench versions: 4.0 revises and prunes the 3.0 task set and changes environment resources, requiring fresh trials. Within 4.0, harness, time limit, tools, sampling and resource settings must match; maintainer-agent and Artificial Analysis runs are not interchangeable.

  • Source date2026-10-01
    Artificial Analysis (Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max with fallback))

    Composite index blending reasoning, knowledge, and coding evals into one 0–100 score.

    Comparable with caveatOnly same-version scores are comparable. v4.3.2 was rebaselined (the top score fell from 66 on v4.1.1 to ~58), so v4.1.1 figures must not be compared with v4.3.2 figures — check the cited source and its date.

Pricing tiers

Base 1: Uses Base44 message credits. Model-specific cost is shown under Credits Used per message; no direct token-rate API price is verified.

Claude Sonnet 5.5: Standard $2/$10 per MTok with no long-context surcharge; cache reads $0.20, 5-minute writes $2.50 and 1-hour writes $4. Batch $1/$5. US-only inference adds 10% where supported. The 300K output limit requires the Batch API beta header output-300k-2026-03-24; standard output stays 128K. Knowledge cutoff Jun 2026; retirement not sooner than September 28, 2027.

BalancedRecord checked October 2, 2026

Base 1

Base44's first in-house model is offered in its app-building chat, with the publisher describing it as trained on platform building patterns.

Best for

  • Evaluating app-building prompts within Base44
  • Comparing builder output in an eligible Base44 account

Watch out

No direct inference endpoint, stable API ID, downloadable checkpoint/license, exact context/output limits, parameter count or comparable numeric benchmark is verified. The founder announcement and product changelog do not establish a reliable day-level release date in captured page metadata. The manual model-selection guide requires Builder or higher, while the changelog uses broader all-plan language; verify account access. Publisher fit claims are not independent quality results.

BalancedRecord checked October 1, 2026

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Anthropic’s newer Sonnet model for everyday coding and knowledge work at the same $2/$10 token rates as Sonnet 5.

Best for

  • Everyday coding
  • Document and slide creation
  • Fast iteration

Watch out

Vendor scores use Anthropic's evaluation setup. between_tools turns off up-front thinking only at high effort or below. Forced tool use and non-default temperature/top_p/top_k error; older computer_20251124 and some advisors are rejected. Thinking blocks are model/conversation-bound; progress text needs a display setting that returns it. Haiku 5.5 is announced, not released as of October 1.

When the cheaper one wins

One of these rows is missing a verified output price, so this page will not name a cheaper winner. Run the model picker against the actual job instead of guessing.

Run the model picker

Evidence confidence: Insufficient data

How strong and complete the evidence behind this comparison is — not a prediction of which model is better. Hard limitations apply: missing pricing; evidence too sparse.

  • Pricing incomplete — No verified token pricing for Base 1.
  • 0/5 core specs verified on both sides — Not published for at least one side: context window, max output, release date, parameter count, reasoning levels.
  • No directly aligned benchmark setup — No benchmark has matching cited sources, source dates, units, effort and recorded run details on both models.
  • Verified within the last 90 days — Older of the two catalog checks was 25 days ago.
  • Both models carry source citations — Each side has at least two catalog sources on record.

Source receipts

Each catalog figure was checked against the provider or an independent second source on the date shown.

Common questions

Base 1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5

Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.

Should I use Base 1 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?
Both are classified in our balanced tier; this editorial grouping does not imply equal capability. Base 1 is a candidate for evaluating app-building prompts within base44; Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a candidate for everyday coding. Compare accuracy, tool reliability, latency and cost on representative tasks.

Next step

Choosing between them

The verified figures that separate this pair, computed from the catalog rather than restated boilerplate.

These two models match on every verified catalog figure — the decision comes down to provider preference, availability, and workload fit rather than published numbers.

Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.