GPT-4o wins on price ($2.5 vs $5/1M input). Claude Opus 4.6 wins on coding (99 vs 58) and writing quality and context window (1M vs 128K). For most workflows, Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger default — previous opus flagship, now superseded by claude opus 4.7.
The safest GPT-4o vs Claude Opus 4.6 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 GPT-4o vs Claude Opus 4.6 — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $5.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
GPT-4o handles the same job for about 58% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.
GPT-4o is the fastest of these for GPT-4o vs Claude Opus 4.6 — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
Claude Opus 4.6 leads on coding with a score of 99 vs 58 for GPT-4o.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger context window: 1M vs 128K for GPT-4o.
GPT-4o is cheaper at $2.5/1M input tokens vs $5/1M for Claude Opus 4.6.
Go with Claude Opus 4.6 if you want one model to handle coding and research — it targets agentic coding, complex multi-step reasoning, and deep research.
Switch to GPT-4o when your work is mostly multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows; on that narrower brief it is the better tool.
GPT-4o is the more cost-efficient option at $2.5/1M input — Claude Opus 4.6 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 GPT-4o vs Claude Opus 4.6 answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
Anthropic / Premium / Sep 3, 2026
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.7.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You want the current premium coding leader, need lower cost, or are starting a new integration.
Where the GPT-4o vs Claude Opus 4.6 recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Best all-around pick for image-heavy and multimodal workflows.
Previous Opus flagship, now superseded by Claude Opus 4.7.
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-4oOpenAI | $2.50/1M | $10.00/1M | $45 | 128k tokens | Fast | 58 | 76 | 65 |
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 GPT-4o vs Claude Opus 4.6, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Ranked first here for GPT-4o vs Claude Opus 4.6: 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.
The cost-conscious pick for GPT-4o vs Claude Opus 4.6, about 58% less per token than Claude Opus 4.6 than the top choice while holding 58/100 on coding.
Versatile multimodal model that handles image-related workflows and mixed-media prompts well.
You need the latest reasoning or coding performance — GPT-5.4 replaces it for serious work.
Still a reliable multimodal pick, especially for teams already in the OpenAI ecosystem.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the GPT-4o page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the GPT-4o vs Claude Opus 4.6 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 wins on more of the categories we score — coding, research, long context — so it is the better default of the two. GPT-4o is the better pick when your work is mostly multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows. Neither is universally "better": Claude Opus 4.6 is aimed at agentic coding and complex multi-step reasoning, GPT-4o at multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows.
GPT-4o is cheaper at $2.5/1M input and $10/1M output. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5/1M input and $25/1M output.
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger context window at 1M tokens vs GPT-4o's 128K. For large document analysis, Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger pick.
Claude Opus 4.6 is better for coding with a score of 99 vs GPT-4o's 58 (out of 100). GPT-6 Astra is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
GPT-4o is faster with a fast speed rating (score: 4) vs Claude Opus 4.6's deliberate rating (score: 2). Speed matters most for interactive and high-throughput work; for batch jobs the Claude Opus 4.6 latency penalty is usually invisible.
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. Avoid it if you want the current premium coding leader, need lower cost, or are starting a new integration. That is the main case for looking at GPT-4o instead.
Outclassed by newer models on pure coding and reasoning. Gemini 3.1 Pro now handles multimodal at a lower price. Avoid it if you need the latest reasoning or coding performance — GPT-5.4 replaces it for serious work. Against Claude Opus 4.6 specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (99 vs 58).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. GPT-4o runs $45.00 (at $2.5/1M in and $10/1M out); Claude Opus 4.6 runs $100.00 (at $5/1M in and $25/1M out). That is a $55.00/month difference — GPT-4o 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 4.6 for agentic coding and complex multi-step reasoning, with GPT-4o handling multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows. Routing high-volume, low-stakes calls to GPT-4o at $2.5/1M and reserving Claude Opus 4.6 for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.