Head to head
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-5.1
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) and GPT-5.1 (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-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (AA index) | 44 | 48 ✓ |
| Output speed (tokens/sec) | 44.1 | 142.7 ✓ |
| Context window | 1M ✓ | 400K |
| Max output | 64K | 128K ✓ |
| Input price / 1M | $3 | $1.25 ✓ |
| Output price / 1M | $15 | $10 ✓ |
| Released | 2026-02 | 2025-11 |
Choose Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want…
- Larger context window (1M)
Choose GPT-5.1 if you want…
- Higher intelligence (Artificial Analysis index 48)
- Faster output (~142.7 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-5.1
GPT-5.1 earns its place through adaptive reasoning — a system that genuinely calibrates effort to the task, running roughly twice as fast on straightforward queries and digging deeper on complex ones. That mechanical intelligence shows up in the benchmarks: 94% on AIME 2025, 88.1% on GPQA Diamond, and a 76.3% solve rate on SWE-Bench Verified, making it one of the more capable off-the-shelf options for serious coding and research-level math. Users consistently praise how much cleaner the code output is — fewer logic errors, better edge-case handling — and the improved tool-calling reliability makes it a practical choice for production agentic pipelines. The catch is that the Auto-routing variant has frustrated users who found it silently redirecting requests through stricter safety filters without explanation, a criticism that turned OpenAI's own Reddit launch AMA into a notable PR setback. For teams willing to pick the right variant (Instant, Thinking, or Auto) and work within a September 2024 knowledge cutoff, GPT-5.1 offers strong price-to-capability value at $1.25 per million input tokens — cheaper than its GPT-5.2 successor while covering most production needs.
Full GPT-5.1 details →FAQ
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or GPT-5.1?
GPT-5.1 leads on 3 of the headline metrics (higher intelligence (artificial analysis index 48); faster output (~142.7 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-5.1 cheaper?
GPT-5.1 is cheaper at $3.44 per 1M tokens (blended), versus $6.
Can I use both Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.1?
Yes. Both are available on just4o.chat from a single chat — you can switch between them per message with no separate subscriptions.