Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.4 nano
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.4 nano costs 22× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 35 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 35 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 9 categories and GPT-5.4 nano in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.1 to 23.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 99% for Claude Opus 5 and 5% for GPT-5.4 nano.
- GPT-5.4 nano is cheaper at $0.20 / $1.25 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 400K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.4 nano | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 67.7 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-03-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 400K |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $1.25 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 40 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.0 (#5), GPT-5.4 nano: 43.1 (#82)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 56.4% | 46.9% |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | 49.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1533 | 1404 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | 1,005 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1694 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 55.5 (#1), GPT-5.4 nano: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.1 (#3), GPT-5.4 nano: 23.8 (#159)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | 5.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | 51.5% |
| CritPt | 29.1% | 9.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 30% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1525 | 1380 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | 9% |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 80.3% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | 36.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.67 | 145.78 |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 39.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.3 |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.1 (#6), GPT-5.4 nano: 40.7 (#76)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | 44.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | 12.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 87.8% |
| ProofBench | 99% | 5% |
| LMArena Math | 1533 | 1406 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 25.9% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 6.3% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#8), GPT-5.4 nano: 41.8 (#94)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 78.5% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | 11.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1558 | 1397 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 3.1% |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 51.1 (#6), GPT-5.4 nano: 36.0 (#73)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | 1196 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#3), GPT-5.4 nano: 48.8 (#136)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1500 | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1575 | 1391 |
| LMArena French | 1522 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1522 | 1368 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1510 | 1342 |
| LMArena Korean | 1526 | 1321 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1363 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1368 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#5), GPT-5.4 nano: 72.1 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1516 | 1362 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#20), GPT-5.4 nano: 41.6 (#131)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1516 | 1365 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#2), GPT-5.4 nano: 55.9 (#137)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1506 | 1372 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1313 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1496 | 1382 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than GPT-5.4 nano?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-5.4 nano costs 22× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 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 5 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 5 or GPT-5.4 nano better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.0 versus 43.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.4 nano share?
35 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.4 nano has 40.