Anthropic revealed a new tier above Opus with SWE-bench Pro 77.8%. Not yet on public API - restricted to Project Glasswing.
OpenAI vs Anthropic
Head-to-head comparison of OpenAI (GPT) and Anthropic (Claude) models. Compare 101 OpenAI models against 28 Anthropic models on scores, pricing, capabilities, and context windows. Data refreshed hourly.
Provider Overview
OpenAI vs Anthropic at a glance: model counts, average scores, price ranges, and open source status.
OpenAI (GPT)
ProprietaryAnthropic (Claude)
Safety-FocusedAll OpenAI & Anthropic Models Ranked
Combined ranking of every OpenAI and Anthropic model sorted by composite score. Click any row for detailed analysis.
Key Matchups: GPT vs Claude Head-to-Head
The most important head-to-head comparisons between OpenAI and Anthropic flagship models. Click any matchup for a detailed breakdown.
Claude Opus 4 vs GPT-4o
GPT-4o
71
Claude Opus 5.5
95
Claude Haiku 3.5 vs GPT-4o Mini
GPT-4o-mini
69
Claude 3 Haiku
51
Claude Opus 4 vs o1
o1
74
Claude Opus 5.5
95
Pricing: OpenAI vs Anthropic
How do OpenAI and Anthropic compare on pricing? Here is a full breakdown across all models from each provider.
Both OpenAI and Anthropic offer premium pricing for their flagship models. Anthropic tends to have lower average input prices, while Anthropic edges ahead on output pricing. The best choice depends on your workload profile and whether you value breadth of models or focused model quality.
Capability Coverage: OpenAI vs Anthropic
How many models from each provider support each capability.
OpenAI vs Anthropic - Ecosystem Breadth vs Safety Focus
OpenAI and Anthropic represent the two leading forces in proprietary AI. Both companies were founded with the mission to build safe, powerful AI, but they have taken fundamentally different approaches to achieving that goal.
OpenAI has built the largest AI ecosystem in the world. With 101 models spanning general-purpose (GPT-4o), reasoning (o1, o3), and lightweight variants (GPT-4o Mini), OpenAI offers unmatched breadth. Their ecosystem includes ChatGPT with plugins, custom GPTs, the Assistants API, enterprise SLAs, and deep integrations with Microsoft Azure. For teams that need a comprehensive AI platform with first-party tooling, OpenAI remains the default choice.
Anthropic has differentiated itself through its safety-first approach and the Claude model family. With 28 models including Claude Opus 4 (their most capable), Claude Sonnet 4 (the best balance of speed and intelligence), and Claude Haiku 3.5 (fast and affordable), Anthropic focuses on fewer, more refined models rather than breadth. Claude models are known for strong instruction following, nuanced reasoning, and longer context windows - Claude supports up to 200K tokens of context, enabling analysis of entire codebases and documents in a single prompt.
The key differentiator is philosophy and approach. OpenAI prioritizes rapid iteration and ecosystem expansion, frequently releasing new model variants and features. Anthropic takes a more measured approach, emphasizing Constitutional AI, interpretability research, and careful capability scaling. For teams that prioritize safety, reliability, and long-context performance, Anthropic is a compelling choice. For teams that need the broadest feature set, the most integrations, and the largest developer community, OpenAI remains hard to beat.
Explore More Comparisons
Dive deeper into AI model rankings, provider breakdowns, and head-to-head comparisons.
Other Provider Comparisons
Both are top-tier. OpenAI (GPT-4o) has broader multimodal capabilities and tool ecosystem. Anthropic (Claude 3.5 Sonnet) excels at coding, long outputs, and instruction following. The best choice depends on your specific use case.
OpenAI’s GPT-4o Mini ($0.15/M input) is cheaper than Claude 3.5 Haiku ($0.80/M input). At the flagship level, GPT-4o ($2.50/M) and Claude 3.5 Sonnet ($3/M) are similarly priced.
Yes — both use similar API patterns (chat completions with messages). Libraries like LiteLLM and LangChain make switching between providers seamless. The main differences are in tool calling syntax and response formatting.