Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs GPT-5.4 nano

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.44/100
Margin
9.4pts
winning →
66.79/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #69 (Estimated); GPT-5.4 nano #25 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and GPT-5.4 nano share 13 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 16 to GPT-5.4 nano.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
13
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
3
GPT-5.4 nano only
16
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and GPT-5.4 nano is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

GPT-5.4 nano has the larger context window at 400K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and GPT-5.4 nano
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingΔGPT-5.4 nano
AgenticClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.4 nano42.9
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.4 nano43.8
MathClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.4 nano21.0
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.4 nano66.1

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGPT-5.4 nanoComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableGPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableGPT-5.4 nano191 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableGPT-5.4 nano3.64 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5 Thinking200KGPT-5.4 nano400KGPT-5.4 nano lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGPT-5.4 nanoResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 89.5%76%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 39%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 56.1%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 35.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 27.5%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 24.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 30.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1100Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGPT-5.4 nanoResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 20.63%26.10%GPT-5.4 nano leads
AA-SciCodeSource 49.5%46.9%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA Coding IndexSource 56.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGPT-5.4 nanoResult
AA-LCRSource 74.0%66.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
CritPtSource 4.6%9.3%GPT-5.4 nano leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGPT-5.4 nanoResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.8%38.2%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.6%81.7%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-HLESource 28.4%26.5%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 13.3%-29.5%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.7%25.4%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 59.8%73.6%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 89.5%Not comparable
GPQASource 82.8%Not comparable
HLESource 37.7%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 24.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGPT-5.4 nanoResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 25.860%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 6.250%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGPT-5.4 nanoResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 91.3%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGPT-5.4 nanoResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.0%65.4%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1277Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 66.1%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 69.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGPT-5.4 nanoResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.0%75.9%GPT-5.4 nano leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and GPT-5.4 nano on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and GPT-5.4 nano today?

GPT-5.4 nano: $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.