| Signal | Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) | Delta | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 87 | -3 | |
Pricing | 5 | -80 | |
Context window size | 95 | 0 | |
Recency | 100 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 85 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 0 wins | of 6 | 3 wins |
Score History
90.4
current score
GPT-5.4
right now
91.9
current score
Anthropic
OpenAI
GPT-5.4 saves you $9500.00/month
That's $114000.00/year compared to Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) | GPT-5.4 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 90 | 92 | GPT-5.4 |
| Rank | #4 | #2 | GPT-5.4 |
| Quality Rank | #4 | #2 | GPT-5.4 |
| Adoption Rank | #4 | #2 | GPT-5.4 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1000K | 1050K | GPT-5.4 |
| Pricing | $30.00/$150.00/M | $2.50/$15.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) |
| Benchmarks | 87 | 90 | GPT-5.4 |
| Pricing | 5 | 85 | GPT-5.4 |
| Context window size | 95 | 96 | GPT-5.4 |
| Recency | 100 | 100 | Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) |
| Output Capacity | 85 | 85 | Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) |
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 #4), placing it in the top 99% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 92/100 (rank #2), placing it in the top 100% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 2-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
GPT-5.4 offers 90% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $262.50/month with GPT-5.4 vs $2700.00/month with Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) - a $2437.50 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 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1050K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($15.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (92/100) 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 (Fast) and GPT-5.4 are extremely close in overall performance (only 1.5 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
GPT-5.4
90% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Anthropic
| Capability | Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Anthropic
OpenAI
GPT-5.4 saves you $211.50/month
That's 90% cheaper than Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) 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 (Fast) | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1M | 1.1M |
| Max Output Tokens | 128,000 | 128,000 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Apr 7, 2026 | Mar 5, 2026 |
The narrow 67 vs 62 score gap suggests Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) leverages premium infrastructure or specialized optimizations that partially offset its $150/M output pricing disadvantage. This pricing structure indicates Anthropic is positioning this model for high-value, low-volume coding tasks where the extra 8% performance delta from GPT-5.4 doesn't justify the 10x cost increase for most workloads.
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) would cost $360/month ($18 input + $342 output) versus GPT-5.4's $37.50/month ($1.50 input + $36 output), making GPT-5.4 nearly 10x more economical. At this usage level, you're paying an extra $322.50/month for Claude's marginally lower performance (62 vs 67 score), making GPT-5.4 the clear choice unless you have specific Anthropic ecosystem requirements.
The primary justification would be existing Anthropic infrastructure dependencies or specific prompt engineering optimizations that don't transfer well to OpenAI's models. With GPT-5.4 ranking #5 versus Claude's #9 position among 317 coding models, plus the 10x output pricing penalty, technical superiority alone cannot justify Claude selection.
The 10% context advantage allows GPT-5.4 to process approximately 25,000 more lines of code in a single pass, which becomes critical for monorepo analysis or full-stack debugging sessions. Combined with its $15/M output pricing versus Claude's $150/M, GPT-5.4 enables more aggressive context stuffing strategies without budget concerns.
While both models share identical listed capabilities, GPT-5.4's explicit file handling in its modality spec (text+image+file->text vs text+image->text) suggests more mature multimodal processing, particularly important for analyzing screenshots of errors alongside code files. This technical distinction, combined with GPT-5.4's 4-position rank advantage (#5 vs #9), indicates superior real-world versatility.
Given the 10x output cost multiplier and 5-point performance deficit, Claude becomes defensible only below approximately 10K output tokens/day where the monthly difference stays under $45. Above this threshold, GPT-5.4's combination of superior performance (67 vs 62 score), better ranking (#5 vs #9), and dramatically lower costs makes Claude's selection require non-technical justifications like compliance or existing Anthropic contracts.