Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) | GPT-5.4 (xhigh) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $5 | $2.5 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $25 | $15 |
Verdict. GPT-5.4 (xhigh) takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.
Pricing. Both models sit in the premium bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.7× the per-million-token cost, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). GPT-5.4 (xhigh) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) is strongest on Intelligence Index (38.8). GPT-5.4 (xhigh) leads on Coding Index (71.1), Intelligence Index (53.1).
Speed. On throughput, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) generates tokens at 131 tok/s versus 36 tok/s — about 72% faster. On time-to-first-token, Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) responds in 2410ms vs 144080ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.
Provider. Anthropic and OpenAI sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Anthropic tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while OpenAI often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) costs $525.00 ($6300/year); GPT-5.4 (xhigh) costs $300.00 ($3600/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $75.00/run, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) ≈ $42.50/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $3500/run, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) ≈ $2000/run. GPT-5.4 (xhigh) becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.
Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.
Head-to-head deltas
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
GPT-5.4 (xhigh) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $5.63/M tokens vs $10.00/M for Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
GPT-5.4 (xhigh) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
GPT-5.4 (xhigh) generates tokens faster at 131 tok/s vs 36 tok/s. Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) also has lower time-to-first-token (2.41s vs 144.08s).
Choose based on your priorities: GPT-5.4 (xhigh) for lower cost, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) for stronger benchmark performance, and GPT-5.4 (xhigh) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.