Which model is better: Claude Opus 5.5 or GPT-4o Mini?
GPT-4o Mini is 96.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (26.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (460ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 140 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 93.2% vs. 40.2% 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 Opus 5.5
GPT-4o Mini
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$4.00
$0.15
GPT-4o Mini is 26.7x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$20.00
$0.60
GPT-4o Mini (97.0% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.200
$0.075
GPT-4o Mini is 2.7x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$5.00
$0.15
GPT-4o Mini is 33.3x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
1,024k (128k out)
131k (16k out)
Claude Opus 5.5 (7.8x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
680ms
220ms
GPT-4o Mini (460ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
95 tok/s
140 tok/s
GPT-4o Mini (+45 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
89.9%
41%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+48.9% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
93.2%
40.2%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+53.0% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
92.1%
68%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+24.1% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
98%
70.2%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+27.8% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
57.8 / 100
67.2 / 100
GPT-4o Mini (+9.4 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M cached reads).
GPT-4o Mini is cheaper at $0.15/1M input tokens ($0.60/1M output) compared to $4.00/1M input ($20.00/1M output) for Claude Opus 5.5.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude Opus 5.5 or GPT-4o Mini?
GPT-4o Mini delivers faster first-token latency at 220ms TTFT (140 tok/s throughput) compared to 680ms TTFT (95 tok/s) for Claude Opus 5.5.
How do Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-4o Mini compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 89.9% versus 41% for GPT-4o Mini. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 93.2% versus 40.2% for GPT-4o Mini (and 98% vs 70.2% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude Opus 5.5?
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M cached reads).
When should you choose GPT-4o Mini?
Choose GPT-4o Mini (OpenAI) for high-volume classification, lightweight RAG chatbots, and structured JSON extraction — offering a 131k context window, 220ms TTFT, and $0.15/1M input pricing ($0.075/1M cached reads).
