Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins for most everyday tasks in 2026. It leads on SWE-bench coding (79.6% vs GPT-5.4's 74.9%), writing quality, and has a dramatically larger context window (1M vs 272K tokens) at a similar price ($3 vs $2.50/1M input). GPT-5.4's one clear edge is desktop computer-use via API — it can click, type, and navigate software autonomously, a capability Claude doesn't match. For developers and knowledge workers not needing agentic desktop control, Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the better daily driver.
OpenAIPremium
GPT-5.4
Best for agentic automation and desktop control workflows.
VS
AnthropicPremium
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Best daily driver for coding and writing — the model most developers actually reach for.
Winner
At a glance
GPT-5.4
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Input cost / 1M tokens
$$2.50/1M
$$3.00/1M
Output cost / 1M tokens
$$15.00/1M
$$15.00/1M
Context window
272k tokens
1M tokens
Speed
Balanced
Balanced
Price tier
Premium
Premium
Benchmarks
SWE-bench (coding)
74.9%
79.6%
Arena Elo
1,355
1,340
MMLU
91%
88.3%
How they compare
Which model wins for each use case — and why.
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores 79.6% on SWE-bench vs GPT-5.4's 74.9%, and is the default model in Cursor and Windsurf — the leading AI code editors.
WritingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
Claude Sonnet 4.6 consistently produces more natural, tonally precise prose. For editorial, marketing, and long-form content, it's the stronger pick.
Context WindowClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
Claude Sonnet 4.6 supports 1M tokens vs GPT-5.4's 272K — nearly 4× more. For analyzing large codebases, documents, or transcripts, Claude wins clearly.
Agentic / Desktop ControlGPT-5.4 wins
GPT-5.4 is the only frontier model with desktop computer-use via API — it can click, type, and navigate apps autonomously. Claude has no equivalent.
PriceGPT-5.4 wins
GPT-5.4 costs $2.50/1M input tokens vs Claude Sonnet 4.6's $3/1M — about 17% cheaper at high volume.
Which should you pick?
Pick GPT-5.4 if…
You need agentic workflows that automate desktop or web browser interactions via API
You're embedded in the OpenAI ecosystem with existing Assistants or function calling setups
Input cost matters and you want to save ~17% per token
For most workflows, Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger choice.
The best all-around model for most developers and writers. Strong SWE-bench, excellent writing, 1M context — all at $3/1M input. Hard to beat as a daily driver.
The case for each model
What each one is genuinely good at, where it falls down, and when we would steer you away from it.
The runner-up here, but not by a wide margin. It is the closer match to Claude Sonnet 4.6 on price, context and speed than the headline numbers suggest.
OpenAI's latest flagship with unique desktop-control capabilities — it can see your screen, click, and navigate apps via the API.
Input
$2.50/1M
Output
$15.00/1M
Context
272k tokens
Speed
Balanced
What people actually use it for
Building agents that browse the web and operate desktop software autonomously via the API
Complex multi-step reasoning for financial modeling and decision analysis
Autonomous test-run-debug loops for coding with computer-use control
Where it wins
Only frontier model that can control a desktop via API (click, type, navigate)
Strong at multi-step agentic tasks and autonomous workflows
Competitive coding performance with 74.9% SWE-bench score
Where it falls down
Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 now outperform it on current premium coding benchmarks
Smaller context window (272K) vs Gemini 3.1 Pro (2M) for research
Skip it if
You need the highest current coding benchmark scores — Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 are newer premium picks.
Our verdict
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.
Our overall pick in this comparison. Against GPT-5.4 it takes 4x the context.
The default model powering Cursor and Windsurf. 79.6% SWE-bench, 1M context window, and best-in-tier writing quality — all at $3/1M input.
Input
$3.00/1M
Output
$15.00/1M
Context
1M tokens
Speed
Balanced
What people actually use it for
Daily coding in Cursor — debugging, refactoring, and feature implementation
Drafting polished client reports, strategy memos, and long-form editorial content
Answering research questions with up to 1M tokens of document context
Where it wins
Strong coding quality with 1M context at $3/1M input
Default model in Cursor and Windsurf, the two most popular AI coding editors
Best writing quality in its price tier — tone, long-form clarity, editorial polish
Where it falls down
Claude Opus 4.7 has a higher current premium coding ceiling
GPT-5.5 or GPT-5.4 are better picks when OpenAI computer-use workflows are the priority
Skip it if
You specifically need desktop-control capabilities (GPT-5.5/GPT-5.4) or the absolute highest coding ceiling (Opus 4.7).
Our verdict
The best all-around model for most developers and writers. Strong SWE-bench, excellent writing, 1M context — all at $3/1M input. Hard to beat as a daily driver.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads on coding (SWE-bench 79.6% vs 74.9%), writing, and context window. GPT-5.4 leads on agentic desktop-control and is slightly cheaper per token.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is better for coding — higher SWE-bench score and default model in Cursor and Windsurf. GPT-5.4 is capable but trails on benchmarks.
Which has a bigger context window?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has a 1M token context window vs GPT-5.4's 272K — nearly 4× larger. For long-document analysis, Claude wins.
Is Claude Sonnet cheaper than GPT-5.4?
Slightly more expensive: Claude Sonnet 4.6 costs $3/1M input vs GPT-5.4's $2.50/1M. Both have $15/1M output. The difference is modest for most workloads.