Claude Opus 5.5 wins on coding (100 vs 99) and price ($4 vs $10/1M 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 Astra 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 Astra — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $4.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Astra is the fastest of these for Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra — 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 99 for GPT-6 Astra.
GPT-6 Astra has the larger context window: 1.05M vs 1M for Claude Opus 5.5.
Claude Opus 5.5 is cheaper at $4/1M input tokens vs $10/1M for GPT-6 Astra.
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 for agentic coding, long-running agents and knowledge work where Opus 5 was the bar. Its coding and research scores are what carry the recommendation here.
Choose GPT-6 Astra when your work is mostly computer and browser use and long-horizon agentic coding — that is the workload it was tuned for.
Both models serve different primary workflows — Claude Opus 5.5 for agentic coding and long-running agents and knowledge work where Opus 5 was the bar, GPT-6 Astra for computer and browser use and long-horizon agentic coding — so running each where it has a clear edge often beats forcing one to do both.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra 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 Astra 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.
OpenAI's frontier answer to Fable 5.1 — computer-use and agentic-coding leader at $10/$50.
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 AstraOpenAI | $10.00/1M | $50.00/1M | $200 | 1.1M tokens | Deliberate | 99 | 97 | 100 |
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 Astra, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Ranked first here for Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra: 100/100 on coding, with the widest margin of anything in this line-up.
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.
Here for latency: it answers fastest of anything listed for Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra, at 99/100 on coding.
OpenAI's September 3, 2026 frontier release — the first GPT-6 model and OpenAI's answer to Claude Fable 5.1 two days earlier. State of the art on computer use (OSWorld 2.0 72.6% in ~47% less time than GPT-5.6 Sol), agentic coding (Terminal-Bench 4.0 57.9%), and frontier math (FrontierMath Tier 4 97.6%). $10/$50 per 1M tokens, 1.05M context, 128K output, knowledge cutoff April 30, 2026.
You are cost-sensitive or latency-bound — GPT-6.1 Sol is a fifth of the price — or you need it today in an Enterprise workspace, where it is off by default, or for offensive-security work, which it refuses outside OpenAI Daybreak.
The new computer-use and agentic-coding ceiling, and OpenAI's first model priced like a Mythos-class Claude. Astra beats Claude Fable 5.1 on Terminal-Bench 4.0 (57.9% vs 55.8%), Terminal-Bench Science (64.6% vs 52.6%) and FrontierMath Tier 4 (97.6% vs 87.8%), and it is the only model with a credible OSWorld 2.0 result above 70%. It loses to Fable 5.1 on Humanity's Last Exam and on Artificial Analysis's index, costs five times GPT-5.6 Sol, and ships without a SWE-bench number. If your work is computer use, browser agents or math, it is the pick; for everyday coding at scale, GPT-6.1 Sol at $2/$10 is the value default — OpenAI says it comes close to Astra at a fifth of the price.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the GPT-6 Astra 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 Astra 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 Astra is the better pick when your work is mostly computer and browser use and long-horizon agentic coding. 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 Astra at computer and browser use and long-horizon agentic coding.
Claude Opus 5.5 is cheaper at $4/1M input and $20/1M output. GPT-6 Astra costs $10/1M input and $50/1M output.
GPT-6 Astra has the larger context window at 1.05M tokens vs Claude Opus 5.5's 1M. For large document analysis, GPT-6 Astra is the stronger pick.
Claude Opus 5.5 is better for coding with a score of 100 vs GPT-6 Astra's 99 (out of 100). Claude Opus 5.5 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Both Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 Astra have similar speed profiles — rated deliberate. Neither will be the bottleneck if latency is your deciding factor.
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 Astra instead.
$10/$50 per 1M — two and a half times GPT-5.6 Sol's $4/$20 promotional rate, five times GPT-6.1 Sol's $2/$10, and the same premium as Claude Fable 5.1; Fast mode doubles it again. Trails Claude Fable 5.1 on Humanity's Last Exam with tools (57.2% vs 65.0%) and on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (61.2 vs 65.7). OpenAI published no SWE-bench Verified or SWE-bench Pro figure at launch, so it does not appear on our SWE-bench leaderboard. Avoid it if you are cost-sensitive or latency-bound — GPT-6.1 Sol is a fifth of the price — or you need it today in an Enterprise workspace, where it is off by default, or for offensive-security work, which it refuses outside OpenAI Daybreak. Against Claude Opus 5.5 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (100 vs 99).
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 Astra runs $200.00 (at $10/1M in and $50/1M out). That is a $120.00/month difference — Claude Opus 5.5 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 Astra handling computer and browser use and long-horizon agentic coding. Since Claude Opus 5.5 is both the stronger and the cheaper option here, a split mainly makes sense if GPT-6 Astra covers a capability you specifically need.