Compare/GPT-4 vs Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)

GPT-4vsClaude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

OpenAI

GPT-4

Input
$30/M
Output
$60/M
Speed
TTFT
Anthropic

Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)

Input
$15/M
Output
$75/M
Speed
TTFT

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)
Faster (tok/s)
Lower Latency
Benchmarks (1-1)
Tie

Pricing Comparison

MetricGPT-4Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)
Input ($/M tokens)$30$15
Output ($/M tokens)$60$75
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
GPT-4$36.00
Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)$22.50

Speed Comparison

Speed data not available for these models.

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. GPT-4 and Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) split the benchmark comparison evenly at 1–1. The tiebreaker here is price, speed, and what you actually run them on.

Pricing. Both models sit in the premium bracket for output-token pricing. At 0.8× the per-million-token cost, GPT-4 is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). GPT-4 makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. GPT-4 is strongest on Coding Index (13.1), Intelligence Index (6.8). Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) leads on Intelligence Index (34.5).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. OpenAI and Anthropic sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: OpenAI tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Anthropic 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): GPT-4 costs $1800.00 ($21600/year); Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) costs $1575.00 ($18900/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): GPT-4 ≈ $270.00/run, Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) ≈ $225.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): GPT-4 ≈ $12000/run, Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) ≈ $10500/run. Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) 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

  • Benchmark wins tie exactly at 1–1. The tiebreaker on raw benchmark parity will be price, speed, or capability coverage.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
6.834.5
Coding Index
13.1
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
GPT-41 wins
1 winsClaude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GPT-4 or Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)?

Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $30.00/M tokens vs $37.50/M for GPT-4.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

It's a tie — both models win 1 benchmarks each across 12 evaluated categories. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Both models have comparable generation speeds.

When should I use GPT-4 vs Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning)?

Choose based on your priorities: Claude 4.1 Opus (Reasoning) for lower cost, both perform similarly on benchmarks, and both have comparable speed. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.