Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 (low) | Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $2.5 | $3 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $15 | $15 |
Verdict. GPT-5.4 (low) wins the overall benchmark matchup 6–0 across 6 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.
Pricing. Both models sit in the premium bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. GPT-5.4 (low) is strongest on GPQA Diamond (87%), IFBench (66%), SciCode (50%). Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) leads on GPQA Diamond (80%), SciCode (44%), TerminalBench (42%).
Speed. On throughput, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) generates tokens at 47 tok/s versus 0 tok/s — about 100% faster. On time-to-first-token, GPT-5.4 (low) responds in 0ms vs 1137ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.
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-5.4 (low) costs $300.00 ($3600/year); Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) costs $315.00 ($3780/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): GPT-5.4 (low) ≈ $42.50/run, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) ≈ $45.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): GPT-5.4 (low) ≈ $2000/run, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) ≈ $2100/run. GPT-5.4 (low) 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 (low) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $5.63/M tokens vs $6.00/M for Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort).
GPT-5.4 (low) wins 6 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) generates tokens faster at 47 tok/s vs 0 tok/s. GPT-5.4 (low) also has lower time-to-first-token (0.00s vs 1.14s).
Choose based on your priorities: GPT-5.4 (low) for lower cost, GPT-5.4 (low) for stronger benchmark performance, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.