Claude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 Mini

Summary of head‑to‑head results in our 12‑test suite:

• Claude Opus 4.6 wins: creative_problem_solving (5 vs 4), tool_calling (5 vs 4), agentic_planning (5 vs 4), safety_calibration (5 vs 2). In our rankings Opus ties for 1st in strategic_analysis, creative_problem_solving, agentic_planning, tool_calling, faithfulness, persona_consistency, multilingual and long_context — e.g., tool_calling is “tied for 1st with 16 other models out of 54 tested.” Safety_calibration is a clear Opus advantage (score 5, tied for 1st) which matters when you need confident refusal/allow decisions in risky prompts. Tool_calling (5) means better function selection and sequencing for agents in our tests.
• GPT‑5.4 Mini wins: structured_output (5 vs 4), constrained_rewriting (4 vs 3), classification (4 vs 3). GPT‑5.4 Mini ranks tied for 1st on structured_output (tied with 24 others) and ranks much higher on constrained_rewriting (rank 6 of 53) — this matters when you require strict JSON/schema compliance or compression into tight character limits. Classification being 4 vs 3 signals fewer routing or taxonomy errors in our classification tests.
• Ties: strategic_analysis (5/5), faithfulness (5/5), long_context (5/5), persona_consistency (5/5), multilingual (5/5). For tasks like long‑context retrieval at 30K+ tokens or multilingual parity, both models performed equivalently in our suite.
• External benchmarks: Beyond our internal tests, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 78.7% on SWE‑bench Verified (Epoch AI), ranking 1 of 12 (sole holder) for coding/GitHub issue resolution. Opus also posts 94.4 on AIME 2025 in our data, ranking 4 of 23. GPT‑5.4 Mini has no SWE‑bench or AIME result in the payload to compare. Practical meaning: pick Opus when agents, multi‑step tool use, and conservative safety behavior are priorities; pick GPT‑5.4 Mini when you need strict schema conformance, compact rewrites, or cost‑effective classification at scale.

Per‑token costs: Claude Opus 4.6 charges $5 input / $25 output per mTok; GPT‑5.4 Mini charges $0.75 input / $4.50 output per mTok — a price ratio of 5.56×. Example (50/50 input/output split):

• 1M tokens (1,000 mTok): Claude ≈ $15,000; GPT‑5.4 Mini ≈ $2,625.
• 10M tokens (10,000 mTok): Claude ≈ $150,000; GPT‑5.4 Mini ≈ $26,250.
• 100M tokens (100,000 mTok): Claude ≈ $1,500,000; GPT‑5.4 Mini ≈ $262,500. If your workload is output‑heavy (e.g., 20% input / 80% output), Claude’s cost rises because its output rate is $25/mTok; for 1M tokens at 20/80 split Claude ≈ $21,000 vs GPT ≈ $3,150. Teams doing millions of tokens/month, embedded assistants, or large agent fleets must care about the gap; smaller projects or latency‑sensitive pilots may prefer Opus for quality despite the cost.

Choose Claude Opus 4.6 if you need: agentic planning, robust tool calling, top safety calibration, or stronger coding/complex problem solving (wins in those benchmarks and 78.7% on SWE‑bench (Epoch AI)). Ideal for teams that prioritize quality over price and run agentic workflows or long professional tasks. Choose GPT‑5.4 Mini if you need: the best structured output, better constrained rewriting and classification at far lower cost — e.g., large volumes of schemaed API responses, high‑throughput chatbots, or bulk classification pipelines. Ideal when token cost matters (GPT‑5.4 Mini charges $0.75/$4.50 per mTok vs Opus $5/$25).