TL;DR
Claude Sonnet 5 recorded a 0.579 mean planning score across 29 frozen conversations in the August 8, 2026 study, at $0.1348 per decision and a 24.9 second median. The displayed Muse arm scored 0.759. These measurements compare routing and planning before fresh research begins. Read the sample uncertainty and historical billing notes alongside the ranking rather than treat a planning score as trading performance.
- Exact tested ID
- anthropic/claude-sonnet-5
- Published studies
- 1
- Provider
- anthropic
Planning models on 29 frozen conversations: compare the tested outputs
16-model campaign, 29 frozen conversations; 14 model rows shown in the public table. Published 2026-08-08. Values retain their original units and grading scale. Raw means are descriptive; the unchanged table retains uncertainty and the other reported dimensions.
Show the table · 2 rows, 5 columns
Scroll sideways to compare all columns. Select a heading to sort.
| anthropic/claude-sonnet-5 | 0.579 | 0.071 | $0.1348 | 24.9s |
| meta/muse-spark-1.1 | 0.759 | 0.079 | $0.0229 | 9.6s |
No matching rows. Clear the filter to see all records.
16-model campaign, 29 frozen conversations; 14 model rows shown in the public table. Published 2026-08-08. Values retain their original units and grading scale.
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5 was tested on 2026-08-08. 16-model campaign, 29 frozen conversations; 14 model rows shown in the public table. Its row and the other published arm use the same task and measurement units.
What this version helps you choose
Luna had the higher observed planning mean and lower recorded bill and median response time in the same router replay.
Route a request and plan the work: follow the published task
A useful planner chooses the right kind of work before doing it. The complete customer conversations and system prompts remain private.
Published task summary
An incoming request and its existing conversation.
Choose whether to write a plan, call a catalog tool, ask for clarification or continue an existing agent.
Read what came back
A routing decision and plan. Every model receives the same saved conversation; the test compares that decision before fresh research begins.
Replay 29 frozen conversations across the model arms, then compare graded plan scores, billing and response time.
Planning models on 29 frozen conversations
For routing and planning, Claude Sonnet 5 recorded a mean score of 0.579 with standard error 0.071. Historical billing was $0.1348 per decision, and median response time was 24.9s. Compare that cost and response time with the other models in the same 29-conversation study; the mean alone does not establish a decisive quality advantage.
Show the table · 4 rows, 2 columns
| Published metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Score | 0.579 |
| +/- SE | 0.071 |
| $ / decision | $0.1348 |
| p50 | 24.9s |
No matching rows. Clear the filter to see all records.
Planning models on 29 frozen conversations: read these measurements
Read the complete rubric, sample and billing notes
16-model campaign, 29 frozen conversations; 14 model rows shown in the public table
Route an incoming request: write a plan, call a catalog tool, ask for clarification or continue an existing agent.
Scoring
Top planning means were close at this sample size. The source's paired comparison with Opus was inconclusive.
Cost units
Cost is provider-billed dollars per decision. Prefix reuse can make it differ from list price multiplied by every input token.
Time units
p50 is median latency in seconds, not the duration of complete research.
Frozen conversation
A saved input kept identical across model arms so their decisions can be compared.
Standard error (SE)
An estimate of uncertainty around the sample mean. A small mean difference needs more evidence than the ranking alone.
No comments yet.