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 shortest way to see the safest default, the lower-cost option, and the specialist pick before you read deeper.
Claude Opus 4.6 is the safest overall answer here when you want the strongest default instead of the lowest list price.
Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is the lower-cost option to start with when you still need useful output at scale.
GPT-5.4 is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum 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 top answer changes when you care more about cost, speed, or long-document work.
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).
The fastest way to see where the recommendation shifts when your priority changes.
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.7.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.
Strong SWE-bench Verified result from the previous Opus generation
1M token context window at standard pricing
Best agentic computer use score at 72.7% on OSWorld
Premium pricing ($15/$75) makes it expensive for high-volume usage
Sonnet 4.6 is only 1.2 points behind on SWE-bench at 5× lower cost
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
Useful if you care about ranking shifts, pricing changes, or a better recommendation appearing in this decision path.
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.
