| Signal | Claude Opus 4 | Delta | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | -17 | |
Benchmarks | 83 | +83 | |
Pricing | 75 | +74 | |
Context window size | 84 | -5 | |
Recency | 78 | -22 | |
Output Capacity | 75 | -10 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 4 wins |
2
days ranked higher
2
days
26
days ranked higher
Anthropic
OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Nano saves you $5167.50/month
That's $62010.00/year compared to Claude Opus 4 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-5.4 Nano | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 82 | 85 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Rank | #67 | #24 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Quality Rank | #67 | #24 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Adoption Rank | #67 | #24 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 200K | 400K | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Pricing | $15.00/$75.00/M | $0.20/$1.25/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 100 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Benchmarks | 83 | -- | Claude Opus 4 |
| Pricing | 75 | 1 | Claude Opus 4 |
| Context window size | 84 | 89 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Recency | 78 | 100 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Output Capacity | 75 | 85 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 82/100 (rank #67), placing it in the top 77% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 85/100 (rank #24), placing it in the top 92% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 3-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
GPT-5.4 Nano offers 98% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $21.75/month with GPT-5.4 Nano vs $1350.00/month with Claude Opus 4 - a $1328.25 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. GPT-5.4 Nano also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (400K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($1.25/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (85/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
GPT-5.4 Nano has a moderate advantage with a 3.299999999999997-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but Claude Opus 4 has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
Best for Quality
Claude Opus 4
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
GPT-5.4 Nano
98% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Claude Opus 4
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Claude Opus 4
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Claude Opus 4
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Anthropic
| Capability | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Modediffers | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Anthropic
OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Nano saves you $115.14/month
That's 98% cheaper than Claude Opus 4 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 200K | 400K |
| Max Output Tokens | 32,000 | 128,000 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | May 22, 2025 | Mar 17, 2026 |
GPT-5.4 Nano scores 85/100 (rank #24) compared to Claude Opus 4's 82/100 (rank #67), giving it a 3-point advantage. GPT-5.4 Nano is the stronger overall choice, though Claude Opus 4 may excel in specific areas like certain benchmarks.
Claude Opus 4 is ranked #67 and GPT-5.4 Nano is ranked #24 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
GPT-5.4 Nano is cheaper at $1.25/M output tokens vs Claude Opus 4's $75.00/M output tokens - 60.0x more expensive. Input token pricing: Claude Opus 4 at $15.00/M vs GPT-5.4 Nano at $0.20/M.
GPT-5.4 Nano has a larger context window of 400,000 tokens compared to Claude Opus 4's 200,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.