# Claude Opus 4 vs GPT-6 Sol

> GPT-6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.8 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-vs-gpt-6-sol
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 28

## Summary

- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 1 category and GPT-6 Sol in 9 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-6 Sol leads 74.0 to 27.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-2: 8.6% for Claude Opus 4 and 89.6% for GPT-6 Sol.
- GPT-6 Sol is cheaper at $2 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.
- GPT-6 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 61.8 |
| Rank | 100 | 12 |
| Context | 200K | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $15 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $10 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62)
- GPT-6 Sol: 60.1 (#11)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1447 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| DeepSWE | — | 68.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 49.3% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1688 |
| SciCode | — | 57.6% |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 2,462 |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42)
- GPT-6 Sol: 37.2 (#36)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 54.3% |
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 26.4% |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 14,428 |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121)
- GPT-6 Sol: 74.0 (#9)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | 89.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | 95.5% |
| CritPt | 0.3% | 30.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1418 |
| DTBench | 81.6% | 97.3% |
| LMCA | 37.4% | 59.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | 162.72 |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 90.1% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 53.3% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 56% |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86)
- GPT-6 Sol: 87.2 (#7)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | 100% |
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1402 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 89.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 90% |
| ProofBench | — | 83% |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88)
- GPT-6 Sol: 64.8 (#15)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | 94.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | 6.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1439 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 60.7% |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106)
- GPT-6 Sol: 47.6 (#10)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | 1245 |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 36.9% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 58.3% |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138)
- GPT-6 Sol: 50.5 (#118)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1405 |
| LMArena French | 1372 | 1410 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | 1385 |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1401 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | 1384 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28)
- GPT-6 Sol: 74.5 (#94)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1412 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172)
- GPT-6 Sol: 43.1 (#108)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1411 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89)
- GPT-6 Sol: 71.9 (#18)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1395 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1378 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | 2125 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1412 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4 better than GPT-6 Sol?

GPT-6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.8 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 or GPT-6 Sol?

GPT-6 Sol is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4 lists at $15 and $75.

### Is Claude Opus 4 or GPT-6 Sol better for coding?

GPT-6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 60.1 versus 47.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and GPT-6 Sol share?

28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and GPT-6 Sol has 45.