Claude 4 Opus
Proprietary CommercialDeveloped by Anthropic · Frontier Deep Reasoning Transformer · Modalities: Text, Vision · Released 2026-03-20
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for Claude 4 Opus?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 87/100Architectural & Production Profile
Anthropic's ultra-dense flagship model built for multi-hour autonomous agent horizons, novel scientific synthesis, and zero-defect systems architecture.
Mission-critical R&D, long-horizon autonomous coding tasks, complex theorem proving, and executive strategic synthesis.
- Architecture
- Frontier Deep Reasoning Transformer
- Modalities
- Text, Vision
- Max Output Tokens
- 64,000 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $30.000 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting Claude 4 Opus
Compare latency, streaming speed, and token pricing across cloud API providers.
| Inference Provider | Role | Input / 1M | Output / 1M | Avg TTFT | Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthropic Claude API → | Primary Host | $15.00 | $75.00 | 920ms | 46 tok/s |
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$15.00/1M in · $75.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $1.500/1M read · $18.75/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving Claude 4 Opus (36)
Claude 4 Opus vs Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon is 86.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (7.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 4 Argon delivers lower response latency at 850ms TTFT (70ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 115 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 77.2% for Claude 4 Opus and 93.8% vs. 87.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Claude 4.5 Sonnet is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (540ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 84 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 75.8% for Claude 4.5 Sonnet and 87.1% vs. 84.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5 is 73.3% cheaper for input tokens ($4.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $20.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (3.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude Opus 5.5 delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (240ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 95 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 77.2% for Claude 4 Opus and 93.2% vs. 87.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 98.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.25 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $1.50 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (60.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (815ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 210 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.5% for Gemini 3.8 Flash and 87.1% vs. 79.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs GPT-5
GPT-5 is 83.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (6.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5 delivers lower response latency at 340ms TTFT (580ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 105 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 74.9% for GPT-5 and 87.1% vs. 85.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs GPT-6 Astra
GPT-6 Astra is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($10.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $50.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-6 Astra delivers lower response latency at 740ms TTFT (180ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 74 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 75.7% for GPT-6 Astra and 87.1% vs. 96.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 91.2% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (11.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (400ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 78 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 77.2% for Claude 4 Opus and 90.1% vs. 87.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs DeepSeek R1
DeepSeek R1 is 96.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.55 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.19 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (27.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4 Opus delivers lower response latency at 920ms TTFT (530ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 46 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek R1 and 87.1% vs. 71.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 98.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.22 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.65 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (68.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) delivers lower response latency at 310ms TTFT (610ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 165 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 77.2% for Claude 4 Opus and 91.3% vs. 87.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs 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.
Claude 4 Opus vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.7 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 540ms TTFT (380ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 72 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 70.3% for Claude 3.7 Sonnet and 87.1% vs. 78.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro is 91.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (12.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.1 Pro delivers lower response latency at 420ms TTFT (500ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 98 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.8% for Gemini 3.1 Pro and 87.1% vs. 82.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Grok 4
Grok 4 is 83.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $12.50 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (6.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 4 delivers lower response latency at 480ms TTFT (440ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 95 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 73.2% for Grok 4 and 87.1% vs. 86.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick is 98.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (75.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (785ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 175 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 62.4% for Llama 4 Maverick and 87.1% vs. 73.8% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 98.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (93.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (640ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 185 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 77.2% for Claude 4 Opus and 91.7% vs. 87.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 99.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (200.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (842ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 265 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 87.1% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs OpenAI o4-mini
OpenAI o4-mini is 92.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (13.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, OpenAI o4-mini delivers lower response latency at 680ms TTFT (240ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 125 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 87.1% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 is 99.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (107.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V3 delivers lower response latency at 410ms TTFT (510ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 78 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek V3 and 87.1% vs. 59.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (125.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (805ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 155 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT and 87.1% vs. 71.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs OpenAI o3-mini
OpenAI o3-mini is 92.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (13.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4 Opus delivers lower response latency at 920ms TTFT (30ms faster than OpenAI o3-mini) with 46 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.3% for OpenAI o3-mini and 87.1% vs. 79.7% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 94.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.80 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $4.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (18.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers lower response latency at 190ms TTFT (730ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 130 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 87.1% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 310ms TTFT (610ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 80 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.0% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and 87.1% vs. 59.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 99.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (150.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.0 Flash delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (640ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 185 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 51.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash and 87.1% vs. 63.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 98.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (50.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (810ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 180 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 87.1% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 91.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (12.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Pro delivers lower response latency at 700ms TTFT (220ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 80 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 87.1% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs GLM-5.3
GLM-5.3 is 97.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $1.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (42.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3 delivers lower response latency at 160ms TTFT (760ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 120 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 56.0% for GLM-5.3 and 87.1% vs. 67.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (125.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (830ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 175 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 87.1% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs GPT-4o
GPT-4o is 83.3% cheaper for input tokens ($2.50 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (6.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (640ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 100 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 87.1% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs GPT-4o Mini
GPT-4o Mini is 99.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (100.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (700ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 140 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 87.1% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol is 86.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (7.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-6.1 Sol delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (400ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 135 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 77.2% for Claude 4 Opus and 92.4% vs. 87.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Grok 3
Grok 3 is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($3.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $15.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 delivers lower response latency at 620ms TTFT (300ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 88 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 65.8% for Grok 3 and 87.1% vs. 84.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Grok 3 Mini
Grok 3 Mini is 98.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $1.20 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (50.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 Mini delivers lower response latency at 150ms TTFT (770ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 160 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 54.0% for Grok 3 Mini and 87.1% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (125.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (775ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 165 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 87.1% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
Mistral Large 2 (2411) is 86.7% cheaper for input tokens ($2.00 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $6.00 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (7.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Mistral Large 2 (2411) delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (540ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 75 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 45.2% for Mistral Large 2 (2411) and 87.1% vs. 54.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs o1
Claude 4 Opus and o1 share identical input pricing at $15.00 per 1M tokens ($75.00 vs. $60.00 output). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4 Opus delivers lower response latency at 920ms TTFT (1680ms faster than o1) with 46 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 87.1% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Claude 4 Opus vs Qwen 3.8 27B
Qwen 3.8 27B is 98.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (75.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 27B delivers lower response latency at 120ms TTFT (800ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 140 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Claude 4 Opus leads coding evaluations at 77.2% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.4% for Qwen 3.8 27B and 87.1% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does Claude 4 Opus cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
Claude 4 Opus costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $1.500 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 90%.
What are Claude 4 Opus's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
Claude 4 Opus achieves 77.2% on SWE-bench Verified, 96.8% on HumanEval coding, 87.1% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 91.8% on MMLU-Pro, and 98.1% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 43.6/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of Claude 4 Opus?
Claude 4 Opus supports a 204,800 token context window (64,000 max output tokens) and operates at 920ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 46 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for Claude 4 Opus?
Mission-critical R&D, long-horizon autonomous coding tasks, complex theorem proving, and executive strategic synthesis.