--- title: "Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4" type: comparison id: "claude-vs-gpt" description: "Head-to-head comparison of Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 — the two most capable proprietary AI models as of April 2026. Benchmarks, pricing, coding, writing, and ecosystem analysis." last_updated: "2026-04-10" tags: - "claude" - "gpt" - "anthropic" - "openai" - "comparison" --- # Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 The two most capable proprietary AI models available. This is the comparison most people are actually trying to make, and the answer is less obvious than either fanbase wants it to be. ## At a Glance | | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT-5.4 | |---|---|---| | **Provider** | Anthropic | OpenAI | | **Release** | February 2026 | March 2026 | | **Context Window** | 1M tokens | 1M tokens | | **Input Pricing** | $5.00 / 1M tokens | $5.00 / 1M tokens | | **Output Pricing** | $25.00 / 1M tokens | $15.00 / 1M tokens | | **Reasoning** | 96/100 | 95/100 | | **Coding** | 97/100 | 92/100 | | **Math** | 93/100 | 95/100 | | **Writing** | 95/100 | 93/100 | | **Multilingual** | 88/100 | 90/100 | | **Speed** | 62/100 | 80/100 | | **SWE-bench** | 80.8% | 74.9% | | **AIME** | Not disclosed | 94.6% | | **Modalities** | Text, Image | Text, Image, Audio | ## Coding This is where the comparison tilts hardest. Claude Opus 4.6 scores 97/100 on coding benchmarks and 80.8% on SWE-bench -- the highest of any model, proprietary or open. GPT-5.4 lands at 92/100 coding and 74.9% SWE-bench. That 6-point SWE-bench gap represents a meaningful difference in real-world software engineering: Opus handles complex multi-file refactors, understands codebases holistically, and produces code that requires fewer corrections. Claude Code, Anthropic's CLI coding agent, is built exclusively on Claude models and is arguably the best agentic coding tool available. GPT-5.4 powers GitHub Copilot and is available in Cursor and Windsurf, giving it broader tool coverage but not the same depth of integration. **Winner: Claude Opus 4.6**, and it is not close. ## Reasoning and Math GPT-5.4 edges ahead on math (95 vs 93) and matches closely on reasoning (95 vs 96). The AIME score of 94.6% is exceptional. For competition-level math and scientific reasoning, GPT-5.4 has a slight advantage -- and GPT-5.4 Thinking pushes further to 98/100 reasoning and 97/100 math, though at $10/$40 per million tokens. Claude Opus 4.6's reasoning score of 96 is marginally higher than GPT-5.4's 95, but in practice the difference is negligible for most tasks. Both models handle complex multi-step reasoning well. **Winner: GPT-5.4**, by a narrow margin. GPT-5.4 Thinking wins decisively if you are willing to pay for it. ## Writing Claude has consistently produced better prose than GPT, and this generation continues the pattern. Opus 4.6 scores 95/100 on writing versus GPT-5.4's 93/100. The difference shows up in nuance: Claude produces text with better structure, more natural phrasing, and fewer of the formulaic patterns that GPT tends toward. For content creation, copywriting, editing, and any task where the quality of the text itself matters, Claude is the better choice. GPT-5.4 is perfectly competent for drafting, summarization, and business writing -- the gap only becomes apparent when you are pushing for quality. **Winner: Claude Opus 4.6.** ## Speed GPT-5.4 is significantly faster. An 80/100 speed score versus Opus's 62/100 means GPT responds more quickly and feels more interactive. This matters for real-time applications, chat interfaces, and any workflow where latency affects user experience. Opus 4.6 thinks carefully, and you feel it. For complex tasks that benefit from deliberation, the slower speed is a feature. For rapid-fire Q&A and interactive coding assistance, it can be a frustration. **Winner: GPT-5.4.** ## Pricing Input pricing is identical at $5.00 per million tokens. Output pricing is where they diverge: Opus 4.6 charges $25.00 per million output tokens versus GPT-5.4's $15.00. For output-heavy workloads (code generation, long-form writing, detailed analysis), GPT-5.4 is 40% cheaper on the output side. Both offer 1M token context windows. Neither charges a surcharge for long-context usage, which is a significant improvement over previous generations. For budget-conscious users who still want frontier quality, the output cost difference adds up. A workload generating 10 million output tokens per month costs $250 with Opus versus $150 with GPT -- $100/month more for Claude. **Winner: GPT-5.4**, on output cost. Input is a tie. ## Ecosystem This is GPT's strongest advantage. OpenAI's ecosystem is the largest in AI: ChatGPT has hundreds of millions of users, the API has the deepest third-party integration, Microsoft 365 Copilot runs on GPT, and the Assistants API has a mature plugin marketplace. If you are building within an organization that already uses Microsoft tooling, GPT-5.4 is the path of least resistance. Anthropic's ecosystem is smaller but growing rapidly. Claude Code is best-in-class for agentic coding. The agent teams feature is unique to Claude. And Anthropic's safety-focused approach resonates with enterprises in regulated industries. But the third-party integration landscape is thinner than OpenAI's. GPT-5.4 also supports audio modality natively, which Claude does not. For voice-based applications, GPT is the only option among these two. **Winner: GPT-5.4.** ## Multimodal GPT-5.4 supports text, image, and audio natively. Claude Opus 4.6 supports text and image. Neither supports video input (Gemini wins that category). For image understanding and analysis, both are strong. For audio processing, GPT is the only choice. If your workflow involves transcription, voice analysis, or audio-to-text pipelines, Claude cannot do it natively. **Winner: GPT-5.4**, due to audio support. ## The Verdict **Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if:** - Coding is your primary use case. The SWE-bench gap is real and consequential. - Writing quality matters. Claude produces noticeably better prose. - You use Claude Code or are building agentic workflows with Anthropic's SDK. - You need the absolute highest coding accuracy and are willing to pay for slower output. **Pick GPT-5.4 if:** - You are already in the OpenAI/Microsoft ecosystem and switching cost is high. - Speed matters for your use case -- GPT is 30% faster. - Your workload is output-heavy and the $10/M token output savings adds up. - You need audio modality or broad third-party integrations. - Math and scientific reasoning are your primary tasks. **The honest answer:** Claude Opus 4.6 is the better model for coding and writing. GPT-5.4 is the better model for ecosystem, speed, and value on output-heavy workloads. Most developers should default to Claude for coding work and GPT for everything else -- or, more practically, use Claude Sonnet 4.6 as their daily driver at $3/$15 and save both Opus and GPT for the tasks that genuinely require frontier capability.