Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT 5.4 Mini
Direct comparison between anthropic and openai for chat models. Specs, prices, strengths, weaknesses — decide on facts.
At a glance
- · Cheaper: GPT 5.4 Mini
- · Longer context window: GPT 5.4 Mini at 400,000 tokens
- · Claude Opus 4.6: Highest hit rate on SWE-bench among closed-source models
- · GPT 5.4 Mini: Fraction of GPT-5.4 cost with very similar tool-use quality
Spec comparison
| Spec | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT 5.4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | anthropic | openai |
| Input per 1M tokens | $5.00 / 1M | $0.75 / 1M |
| Output per 1M tokens | $25.00 / 1M | $4.50 / 1M |
| Context window | 200,000 tok | 400,000 tok |
| Max output | 32,000 tok | 16,384 tok |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-07 | 2026-01 |
| Vision | ||
| Tool calling | ||
| JSON mode | ||
| Structured output | ||
| Reasoning |
Claude Opus 4.6 — strengths
- +Highest hit rate on SWE-bench among closed-source models
- +Excellent at multi-day agentic tasks without drift
- +Top performance on multi-repo code analysis
GPT 5.4 Mini — strengths
- +Fraction of GPT-5.4 cost with very similar tool-use quality
- +Low latency — good for realtime chat and inline completion
- +Same 400k context window as the full-size model
Claude Opus 4.6 — weaknesses
- −Substantially pricier per token than Sonnet — rarely worth the markup
- −Higher latency, especially with extended thinking enabled
GPT 5.4 Mini — weaknesses
- −No dedicated reasoning mode — complex math degrades
- −On very long tool-call chains, drift detection is weaker