The two most-used frontier models for coding and agentic workloads, compared on the criteria that actually move your bill and your output quality.
Anthropic’s mid-tier flagship. Strong on multi-file coding, long documents and tool use; the 200K context handles entire repositories.
OpenAI’s omni model with native audio and vision. Slightly cheaper per token, very fast, and backed by the largest third-party ecosystem.
–
All figures come from official pricing pages, model cards and documentation. Benchmarks use the vendor-reported 0-shot scores. Editorial ratings weigh coding quality, context handling, ecosystem and price-performance. No provider pays for placement; CTA links are placeholders during the test phase.
| Criteria | Price / 1M tokens | Context window | Coding benchmark | Vision | API availability | Overall score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
✦ Claude 3.5 Sonnet#1 Anthropic | $3.00 in / $15.00 out | 200K tokens | 92.0% HumanEval | ✓ Yes (images, charts, PDFs) | Anthropic API, AWS Bedrock, Google Vertex AI | 4.7 |
🤖 GPT-4o OpenAI | $2.50 in / $10.00 out | 128K tokens | 90.2% HumanEval | ✓ Yes (images, audio, video frames) | OpenAI API, Azure OpenAI Service | 4.5 |
Two models, one table, a clear verdict.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs GPT-4o →