Head to head
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-5
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) and GPT-5 (OpenAI) compared on intelligence, speed, context, and price — and which to choose. Both run on just4o.chat from one chat.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | GPT-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (AA index) | 44 | 45 ✓ |
| Output speed (tokens/sec) | 44.1 | 100.1 ✓ |
| Context window | 1M ✓ | 400K |
| Max output | 64K | — |
| Input price / 1M | $3 | $1.25 ✓ |
| Output price / 1M | $15 | $10 ✓ |
| Released | 2026-02 | 2025-08-07 |
Choose Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want…
- Larger context window (1M)
Choose GPT-5 if you want…
- Higher intelligence (Artificial Analysis index 45)
- Faster output (~100.1 tokens/sec)
- Lower price ($3.44 / 1M blended)
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Sonnet 4.6 sits at the sweet spot where coding and agentic work get done without paying Opus prices. On SWE-bench Verified it scores 79.6% — within one point of Opus 4.6 (80.8%) — at roughly a third of the cost, which is why developers running automated pipelines tend to reach for it first. The self-correction training is the headline improvement: when a tool call fails, the model recognizes and recovers rather than cycling through the same error. Users also praise the 1M-token context window for swallowing entire codebases or large document sets in a single pass. The honest caveat is that this context window has edges — retrieval quality degrades on adversarial tests beyond about 700K tokens, so vector-based RAG is still the safer bet for critical long-context searches. Speed is also a known tension: at 44 tokens per second, it runs slower than the median for its tier, which can feel noticeable in real-time applications. Still, for teams that need high-quality code generation, browser automation, and multi-step agentic workflows without Opus-level spend, Sonnet 4.6 is the practical default.
Full Claude Sonnet 4.6 details →GPT-5
GPT-5 is OpenAI's unified flagship — a single model that scales its reasoning effort up or down to match the task, rather than making you pick a separate variant. The result shows up most clearly in hard technical work: a perfect AIME 2025 score with tools, 74.9% on SWE-bench Verified, and a 1.6% error rate on medical benchmark HealthBench make it one of the more capable models available for code, math, and domain-specific research. Its 400,000-token context window handles large codebases and lengthy documents without truncation. Users consistently praise the step-up in accuracy and the meaningful reduction in hallucinations over GPT-4o. The honest caveat: GPT-5 trades warmth for precision. Early adopters widely noted that responses are shorter, cooler, and noticeably less conversational than its predecessor — a real shift if personality and back-and-forth rapport matter to your workflow. Latency is also substantial; extended reasoning produces a time-to-first-token around 68 seconds, which rules it out for anything requiring snappy replies.
Full GPT-5 details →FAQ
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GPT-5?
GPT-5 leads on 3 of the headline metrics (higher intelligence (artificial analysis index 45); faster output (~100.1 tokens/sec); lower price ($3.44 / 1m blended)), while Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins on larger context window (1m). The right pick depends on your priorities.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GPT-5 cheaper?
GPT-5 is cheaper at $3.44 per 1M tokens (blended), versus $6.
Can I use both Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5?
Yes. Both are available on just4o.chat from a single chat — you can switch between them per message with no separate subscriptions.