Claude Opus 5.5 wins on coding (100 vs 98). GPT-6.1 Sol wins on price ($2 vs $4/1M input). For most workflows, Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger default — anthropic's new coding default — top swe-bench pro score at a lower price than opus 5.
The safest Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
Claude Opus 5.5 is the strongest answer here for Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $4.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
GPT-6.1 Sol handles the same job for about 50% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.
GPT-6.1 Sol is the fastest of these for Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Claude Opus 5.5 leads on coding with a score of 100 vs 98 for GPT-6.1 Sol.
GPT-6.1 Sol has the larger context window: 1.05M vs 1M for Claude Opus 5.5.
GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper at $2/1M input tokens vs $4/1M for Claude Opus 5.5.
Go with Claude Opus 5.5 if you want one model to handle coding and research — it targets agentic coding, long-running agents and knowledge work where Opus 5 was the bar.
Switch to GPT-6.1 Sol when your work is mostly agentic coding and computer use when Astra's price is hard to justify; on that narrower brief it is the better tool.
GPT-6.1 Sol is the more cost-efficient option at $2/1M input — Claude Opus 5.5 costs 2x more per input token, so the gap is worth taking seriously wherever token volume rather than peak quality drives the bill.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
Anthropic / Premium / Oct 10, 2026
Anthropic's new coding default — top SWE-bench Pro score at a lower price than Opus 5.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
Your tasks are well-scoped and latency-sensitive — Sonnet 5.5 is half the price and Anthropic says it is the fastest Sonnet yet.
Where the Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Anthropic's new coding default — top SWE-bench Pro score at a lower price than Opus 5.
Near-Astra capability at Sol pricing — OpenAI's value pick.
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 5.5Anthropic | $4.00/1M | $20.00/1M | $80 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 100 | 97 | 99 |
| GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI | $2.00/1M | $10.00/1M | $40 | 1.1M tokens | Balanced | 98 | 94 | 97 |
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 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Our pick for Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol. It scores 100/100 on the coding axis we weight this page by, and nothing else in this shortlist matches it on output quality.
Anthropic's September 22, 2026 Opus — a step up from Opus 5 on agentic coding, long-running agent work and vision, at a lower $4/$20 list price and with fewer tokens spent per finished task.
Your tasks are well-scoped and latency-sensitive — Sonnet 5.5 is half the price and Anthropic says it is the fastest Sonnet yet.
The new premium coding default from Anthropic. Opus 5.5 posts the highest SWE-bench Pro figure in any launch table we track and costs less than Opus 5 did. Fable 5.1 still makes sense for the hardest open-ended research at $10/$50; for almost everything else Opus 5.5 is the better buy, and Sonnet 5.5 at half the price is close behind on well-scoped work.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Opus 5.5 page.
The cost-conscious pick for Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol, about 50% less per token than Claude Opus 5.5 than the top choice while holding 98/100 on coding.
OpenAI's September 29, 2026 DevDay release — a Sol-tier reasoning model that OpenAI says comes close to GPT-6 Astra on agentic coding, computer use and professional work at one fifth of Astra's price.
You need it inside ordinary ChatGPT chats today, or your prompts regularly pass 272K tokens where the rate doubles.
OpenAI's best value for serious work. GPT-6.1 Sol replaces both GPT-6 Sol and, for most teams, GPT-6 Astra: independent testing has it a point behind Astra at a fifth of the list price. Pick Astra only when the last point of capability is worth five times the bill.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the GPT-6.1 Sol page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol 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 5.5 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, research, reasoning — so it is the better default of the two. GPT-6.1 Sol is the better pick when your work is mostly agentic coding and computer use when Astra's price is hard to justify. Neither is universally "better": Claude Opus 5.5 is aimed at agentic coding and long-running agents and knowledge work where Opus 5 was the bar, GPT-6.1 Sol at agentic coding and computer use when Astra's price is hard to justify.
GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper at $2/1M input and $10/1M output. Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4/1M input and $20/1M output.
GPT-6.1 Sol has the larger context window at 1.05M tokens vs Claude Opus 5.5's 1M. For large document analysis, GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger pick.
Claude Opus 5.5 is better for coding with a score of 100 vs GPT-6.1 Sol's 98 (out of 100). Claude Opus 5.5 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
GPT-6.1 Sol is faster with a balanced speed rating (score: 3) vs Claude Opus 5.5's deliberate rating (score: 2). Speed matters most for interactive and high-throughput work; for batch jobs the Claude Opus 5.5 latency penalty is usually invisible.
Not ahead everywhere: Anthropic's own table has Opus 5 higher on Toolathlon Verified (80.6% vs 77.8%). Fast mode doubles the price to $8/$40. Terminal-Bench 4.0 differs by effort setting (66.4% at xhigh, 64.8% at max), so single-digit gaps against rivals are directional. Avoid it if your tasks are well-scoped and latency-sensitive — Sonnet 5.5 is half the price and Anthropic says it is the fastest Sonnet yet. That is the main case for looking at GPT-6.1 Sol instead.
Prompts above 272K input tokens are billed at $4/$15. At launch it was available in ChatGPT Work and Codex, not in regular ChatGPT conversations. Avoid it if you need it inside ordinary ChatGPT chats today, or your prompts regularly pass 272K tokens where the rate doubles. Against Claude Opus 5.5 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (100 vs 98).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. Claude Opus 5.5 runs $80.00 (at $4/1M in and $20/1M out); GPT-6.1 Sol runs $40.00 (at $2/1M in and $10/1M out). That is a $40.00/month difference — GPT-6.1 Sol is the cheaper of the two at this volume, and the gap scales linearly as you send more. Output tokens dominate the bill on both, so prompt length matters far less than response length.
Yes, and for most teams that beats picking one. A common split is Claude Opus 5.5 for agentic coding and long-running agents and knowledge work where Opus 5 was the bar, with GPT-6.1 Sol handling agentic coding and computer use when Astra's price is hard to justify. Routing high-volume, low-stakes calls to GPT-6.1 Sol at $2/1M and reserving Claude Opus 5.5 for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.