| Signal | Claude Opus 4.6 | Delta | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 87 | -3 | |
Pricing | 75 | -24 | |
Context window size | 95 | +6 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 85 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 1 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
Score History
90.4
current score
Claude Opus 4.6
right now
79.3
current score
Anthropic
OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Nano saves you $1667.50/month
That's $20010.00/year compared to Claude Opus 4.6 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT-5.4 Nano | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 90 | 79 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Rank | #5 | #42 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Quality Rank | #5 | #42 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Adoption Rank | #5 | #42 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1000K | 400K | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Pricing | $5.00/$25.00/M | $0.20/$1.25/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Benchmarks | 87 | 90 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Pricing | 75 | 99 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Context window size | 95 | 89 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Output Capacity | 85 | 85 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 90/100 (rank #5), placing it in the top 99% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 79/100 (rank #42), placing it in the top 86% of all 290 models tracked.
Claude Opus 4.6 has a 11-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably better performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
GPT-5.4 Nano offers 95% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $21.75/month with GPT-5.4 Nano vs $450.00/month with Claude Opus 4.6 - a $428.25 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. GPT-5.4 Nano also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($1.25/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (90/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Claude Opus 4.6 clearly outperforms GPT-5.4 Nano with a significant 11.100000000000009-point lead. For most general use cases, Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger choice. However, GPT-5.4 Nano may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Claude Opus 4.6
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
GPT-5.4 Nano
95% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Claude Opus 4.6
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Claude Opus 4.6
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Claude Opus 4.6
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Anthropic
| Capability | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Anthropic
OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Nano saves you $37.14/month
That's 95% cheaper than Claude Opus 4.6 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1M | 400K |
| Max Output Tokens | 128,000 | 128,000 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Feb 4, 2026 | Mar 17, 2026 |
For high-volume production coding tasks, GPT-5.4 Nano's $1.25/M output tokens delivers 92% of Claude's performance at 5% of the cost. However, Claude's 66/100 score translates to measurably better code quality in complex scenarios - if you're generating less than 1M output tokens monthly, the $23.75 premium buys you top-7 performance versus top-13.
Claude's 2.5x larger context window provides diminishing returns for pure coding tasks - both models cap at 128K output tokens anyway. The real differentiation shows in multi-file codebases where Claude can hold 2,500 files simultaneously versus GPT-5.4 Nano's 1,000 files, explaining part of the 6-position rank gap.
Despite GPT-5.4 Nano's file input support, it scores 5 points lower (61 vs 66), suggesting Anthropic's architecture extracts more value from the same feature set. At $5/M input tokens, Claude processes each token 25x more expensively but delivers only 8% better performance, indicating GPT-5.4 Nano's superior efficiency per dollar.
GPT-5.4 Nano costs $14.50/month (10M tokens split 80/20 input/output) versus Claude's $290/month - a 20x difference for a 5-point performance gap. Unless those 5 points directly impact user retention or development velocity by more than 5%, GPT-5.4 Nano's #13 ranking still places it in the top 5% of all coding models.
Claude Opus 4.6's $25/M output pricing targets enterprise teams optimizing for top-7 performance, while GPT-5.4 Nano's $0.20/M input cost (25x cheaper) courts high-volume applications. The 20x output price ratio suggests Anthropic expects 20x fewer tokens generated per customer, focusing on quality over quantity coding workflows.