GPT-6 Astra wins on coding (99 vs 98). Claude Opus 5 wins on price ($5 vs $10/1M input). For most workflows, GPT-6 Astra is the stronger default — openai's frontier answer to fable 5.1 — computer-use and agentic-coding leader at $10/$50.
The safest GPT-6 Astra vs Claude Opus 5 default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
GPT-6 Astra is the strongest answer here for GPT-6 Astra vs Claude Opus 5 — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $10.00/1M/1M input you pay for it.
Claude Opus 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 GPT-6 Astra vs Claude Opus 5 — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
GPT-6 Astra leads on coding with a score of 99 vs 98 for Claude Opus 5.
GPT-6 Astra has the larger context window: 1.05M vs 1M for Claude Opus 5.
Claude Opus 5 is cheaper at $5/1M input tokens vs $10/1M for GPT-6 Astra.
Go with GPT-6 Astra if you want one model to handle coding and research — it targets computer and browser use, long-horizon agentic coding, and frontier math and science work.
Claude Opus 5 earns its place when your work is mostly complex agentic coding and enterprise agent workflows, even though it loses the overall count here.
Claude Opus 5 is the more cost-efficient option at $5/1M input — GPT-6 Astra 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-6 Astra vs Claude Opus 5 answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
OpenAI / Premium / Sep 4, 2026
OpenAI's frontier answer to Fable 5.1 — computer-use and agentic-coding leader at $10/$50.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You are cost-sensitive or latency-bound — GPT-5.6 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.
Where the GPT-6 Astra vs Claude Opus 5 recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
OpenAI's frontier answer to Fable 5.1 — computer-use and agentic-coding leader at $10/$50.
Best premium model for agentic coding — near-Fable 5 quality at half the price.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | $10.00/1M | $50.00/1M | $200 | 1.1M tokens | Deliberate | 100 | 97 | 100 |
| Claude Opus 5Anthropic | $5.00/1M | $25.00/1M | $100 | 1M tokens | Deliberate | 100 | 96 | 98 |
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-6 Astra vs Claude Opus 5, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
Ranked first here for GPT-6 Astra vs Claude Opus 5: 100/100 on coding, with the widest margin of anything in this line-up.
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-5.6 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, Sol at $2/$10 remains the value default.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the GPT-6 Astra page.
The value option for GPT-6 Astra vs Claude Opus 5: about 50% less per token than GPT-6 Astra, at 100/100 on coding. Worth starting here and moving up only if the output disappoints.
Anthropic's flagship-tier Opus that comes close to Claude Fable 5's frontier intelligence at half the price — the new default for complex agentic coding and enterprise agents.
You need fast interactive latency (Sonnet 5 is quicker and one-fifth the price) or absolute frontier ceiling (Fable 5).
The new premium coding default. Opus 5 takes the SWE-bench Verified lead from Opus 4.8 at the same $5/$25 price, and gets within half a point of Fable 5 on agentic coding at half the cost. Choose Fable 5 only when absolute frontier intelligence matters more than budget.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Claude Opus 5 page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the GPT-6 Astra vs Claude Opus 5 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.
GPT-6 Astra wins on more of the categories we score — coding, research, long context — so it is the better default of the two. Claude Opus 5 is the better pick when your work is mostly complex agentic coding and enterprise agent workflows. Neither is universally "better": GPT-6 Astra is aimed at computer and browser use and long-horizon agentic coding, Claude Opus 5 at complex agentic coding and enterprise agent workflows.
Claude Opus 5 is cheaper at $5/1M input and $25/1M 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's 1M. For large document analysis, GPT-6 Astra is the stronger pick.
GPT-6 Astra is better for coding with a score of 99 vs Claude Opus 5's 98 (out of 100). Claude Opus 5.5 is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Both GPT-6 Astra and Claude Opus 5 have similar speed profiles — rated deliberate. Neither will be the bottleneck if latency is your deciding factor.
$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. That is the main case for looking at Claude Opus 5 instead.
Still short of Claude Fable 5's absolute frontier ceiling on the hardest long-running agent tasks. Fast mode (research preview) doubles pricing to $10/$50, erasing the cost advantage over Fable 5. Avoid it if you need fast interactive latency (Sonnet 5 is quicker and one-fifth the price) or absolute frontier ceiling (Fable 5). Against GPT-6 Astra specifically, the gap shows up most on coding (99 vs 98).
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. GPT-6 Astra runs $200.00 (at $10/1M in and $50/1M out); Claude Opus 5 runs $100.00 (at $5/1M in and $25/1M out). That is a $100.00/month difference — Claude Opus 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 GPT-6 Astra for computer and browser use and long-horizon agentic coding, with Claude Opus 5 handling complex agentic coding and enterprise agent workflows. Routing high-volume, low-stakes calls to Claude Opus 5 at $5/1M and reserving GPT-6 Astra for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.