Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs GPT-5.4 nano
Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.4 nano score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.0 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 7 categories and GPT-5.4 nano in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.4 nano leads 40.9 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 44.9% for GPT-5.4 nano.
- GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper at $0.20 / $1.25 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- GPT-5.4 nano accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.4 nano | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-03-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 400K |
| Max output | 32K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $1.25 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 40 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), GPT-5.4 nano: 43.6 (#84)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 49.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1405 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 1,005 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| SciCode | — | 46.9% |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), GPT-5.4 nano: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), GPT-5.4 nano: 23.7 (#173)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 30% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1381 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 9% |
| DTBench | 80% | 80.3% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 36.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 145.81 |
| ForecastBench | 62 | 57.3 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 5.7% |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 39.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 51.5% |
| CritPt | — | 9.3% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
Math GPT-5.4 nano leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), GPT-5.4 nano: 40.9 (#88)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 12.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 87.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1406 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 25.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 6.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 5% |
Knowledge Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), GPT-5.4 nano: 41.9 (#103)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 78.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | 3.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1396 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 11.7% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
Multimodal GPT-5.4 nano leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), GPT-5.4 nano: 36.7 (#78)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1196 |
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), GPT-5.4 nano: 48.6 (#140)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1392 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1367 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1343 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1320 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1363 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1371 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), GPT-5.4 nano: 71.9 (#144)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1362 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), GPT-5.4 nano: 41.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1366 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), GPT-5.4 nano: 55.7 (#142)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1372 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1314 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1382 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than GPT-5.4 nano?
Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.4 nano score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.0 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.25 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-5.4 nano better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (44.4 vs 43.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.4 nano does, with 400K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and GPT-5.4 nano share?
32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.4 nano has 40.