Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-4o
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); GPT-4o #165 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-4o share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 33 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 0 to GPT-4o.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 33
- GPT-4o only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4o only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 68.59 to 41.49. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 36.3 against 0.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 40.700% to 0.345%.
Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.50 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for GPT-4o. That is roughly 2.5x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for GPT-4o.
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 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Δ | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | Margin← 36.0 | GPT-4o0.3 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4oNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.668.1 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4oNot measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.1 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4oNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-4oNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 40.700%B 0.345%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 40.4FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.6 scored 40.700%; GPT-4o scored 0.345%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT-4o | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | GPT-4o$2.5 input / $10 output | GPT-4o has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | GPT-4o131 tok/s | GPT-4o has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | GPT-4o0.81 s | GPT-4o reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | GPT-4o128K | Claude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT-4o | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 25.1% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT-4o | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 33.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT-4o | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.8% | 11.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | 54.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | 3.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | -10.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | 19.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | 37.9% | GPT-4o leads |
MathClaude Opus 4.6 wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | GPT-4o | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.6% | 34.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-4o?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 41.49. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 40.700% and 0.345%.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or GPT-4o?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 36.3 versus 0.3. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.