Which model is better: Claude 4 Opus or OpenAI o3?
OpenAI o3 is 86.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $8.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (7.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4 Opus delivers lower response latency at 920ms TTFT (230ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 46 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 87.1% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Claude 4 Opus
OpenAI o3
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$15.00
$2.00
OpenAI o3 is 7.5x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$75.00
$8.00
OpenAI o3 (89.3% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$1.500
$0.500
OpenAI o3 is 3.0x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$18.75
$2.00
OpenAI o3 is 9.4x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
205k (64k out)
205k (100k out)
Equal Context Window
Avg TTFT Response Latency
920ms
1150ms
Claude 4 Opus (230ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
46 tok/s
82 tok/s
OpenAI o3 (+36 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
77.2%
71.7%
Claude 4 Opus (+5.5% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
87.1%
87.7%
OpenAI o3 (+0.6% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
91.8%
89.8%
Claude 4 Opus (+2.0% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
98.1%
98.6%
OpenAI o3 (+0.5% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
43.6 / 100
60.6 / 100
OpenAI o3 (+17 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
OpenAI o3 is cheaper at $2.00/1M input tokens ($8.00/1M output) compared to $15.00/1M input ($75.00/1M output) for Claude 4 Opus.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude 4 Opus or OpenAI o3?
Claude 4 Opus delivers faster first-token latency at 920ms TTFT (46 tok/s throughput) compared to 1150ms TTFT (82 tok/s) for OpenAI o3.
How do Claude 4 Opus and OpenAI o3 compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude 4 Opus scores 77.2% versus 71.7% for OpenAI o3. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude 4 Opus scores 87.1% versus 87.7% for OpenAI o3 (and 98.1% vs 98.6% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude 4 Opus?
Choose Claude 4 Opus (Anthropic) for mission-critical R&D, long-horizon autonomous coding tasks, complex theorem proving, and executive strategic synthesis — offering a 204k context window, 920ms TTFT, and $15.00/1M input pricing ($1.500/1M cached reads).
When should you choose OpenAI o3?
Choose OpenAI o3 (OpenAI) for algorithmic synthesis, mathematical verification, PhD-level scientific research, and multi-step tool planning — offering a 204k context window, 1150ms TTFT, and $2.00/1M input pricing ($0.500/1M cached reads).
