Claude Opus 4.6 leads SWE-bench at 80.8% vs GPT-5.4's 74.9% — the strongest coding benchmark score of any model. But at $15/1M input vs $2.50, GPT-5.4 is 6× cheaper and has unique desktop-control capabilities. For pure coding quality, Claude Opus 4.6 wins. For cost-efficient work or agentic automation, GPT-5.4 is the better call.
The safest Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Claude Opus 4.6 is the strongest answer here for Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $5.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 handles the same job for about 40% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.
GPT-5.4 is the fastest of these for Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads all models on SWE-bench with 80.8% — the highest coding benchmark score available.
GPT-5.4 is 6× cheaper at $2.50/1M input vs $15/1M for Opus 4.6.
For most developers, Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 79.6% SWE-bench and $3/1M is the smarter middle ground.
Choose Claude Opus 4.6 for the highest possible coding quality where mistakes have real financial consequences.
Choose GPT-5.4 if you need desktop control, or if cost is a stronger constraint than peak benchmark score.
Most teams should consider Claude Sonnet 4.6 as the practical sweet spot — nearly Opus-level coding at 20% of the price.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
Anthropic / Premium / Mar 24, 2026
Best daily driver for coding and writing — the model most developers actually reach for.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You specifically need desktop-control capabilities (GPT-5.5/GPT-5.4) or the absolute highest coding ceiling (Opus 4.7).
Where the Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.7.
Best for agentic automation and desktop control workflows.
Best daily driver for coding and writing — the model most developers actually reach for.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | $5.00/1M | $25.00/1M | $100 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 99 | 94 | 96 |
| GPT-5.4OpenAI | $2.50/1M | $15.00/1M | $55 | 272k tokens | Balanced | 90 | 88 | 88 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic | $3.00/1M | $15.00/1M | $60 | 1M tokens | Balanced | 97 | 98 | 93 |
Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.
Why each one is on the shortlist for Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Ranked first here for Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4: 99/100 on coding, with the widest margin of anything in this line-up.
Anthropic's previous Opus flagship for high-stakes coding, reasoning, and deep research before Opus 4.7.
You want the current premium coding leader, need lower cost, or are starting a new integration.
Still strong for high-stakes engineering work, but Opus 4.7 is the newer premium coding leader. For most teams, Sonnet 4.6 remains the smarter lower-cost default.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Opus 4.6 page.
Here for latency: it answers fastest of anything listed for Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4, at 90/100 on coding.
OpenAI's latest flagship with unique desktop-control capabilities — it can see your screen, click, and navigate apps via the API.
You need the highest current coding benchmark scores — Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 are newer premium picks.
Best choice when you need a model that can operate software autonomously at the older GPT-5.4 price tier. For current premium coding quality, Claude Opus 4.7 leads.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the GPT-5.4 page.
Where most budgets should land for Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 — about 40% less per token than Claude Opus 4.6, and still 97/100 on the coding axis.
Best daily driver for coding and writing — the model most developers actually reach for. Full Claude Sonnet 4.6 review →
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads SWE-bench with 80.8%, making it the strongest coding model available by benchmark. GPT-5.4 scores 74.9%.
Only if coding quality is truly non-negotiable. At $15/1M input vs $2.50 for GPT-5.4, you're paying 6× more for a 5.9 percentage point SWE-bench advantage. Most teams get better ROI from Claude Sonnet 4.6 at $3/1M.
GPT-5.4 has computer-use capabilities — it can control a desktop, click UI elements, and navigate software autonomously via the API. Claude Opus 4.6 doesn't offer this.
For most teams, yes. Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores 79.6% on SWE-bench (only 1.2 points behind Opus) at $3/1M vs $15/1M — 5× cheaper with nearly identical practical coding quality.
Both Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 have 1M token context windows. GPT-5.4 has 272K — significantly smaller for large codebase or document work.