Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | GPT-5.6 Sol (medium) | Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $5 | $5 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $30 | $25 |
Verdict. GPT-5.6 Sol (medium) wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 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 1.2× the per-million-token cost, Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. GPT-5.6 Sol (medium) is strongest on Coding Index (76.3), Intelligence Index (55.6). Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) leads on Intelligence Index (43.9).
Speed. On throughput, GPT-5.6 Sol (medium) generates tokens at 73 tok/s versus 44 tok/s — about 40% faster. On time-to-first-token, Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) responds in 1210ms vs 3520ms, 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-5.6 Sol (medium) costs $600.00 ($7200/year); Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) costs $525.00 ($6300/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): GPT-5.6 Sol (medium) ≈ $85.00/run, Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $75.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): GPT-5.6 Sol (medium) ≈ $4000/run, Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $3500/run. Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) 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
Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $10.00/M tokens vs $11.25/M for GPT-5.6 Sol (medium).
GPT-5.6 Sol (medium) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
GPT-5.6 Sol (medium) generates tokens faster at 73 tok/s vs 44 tok/s. However, Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) has lower time-to-first-token (1.21s vs 3.52s).
Choose based on your priorities: Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) for lower cost, GPT-5.6 Sol (medium) for stronger benchmark performance, and GPT-5.6 Sol (medium) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.