BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases8

Claude Opus 4.5 vs GPT-6 Astra

Full profiles: Claude Opus 4.5 (Anthropic) and GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 11 sources

As of 29 Oct 2026, GPT-6 Astra is ahead of Claude Opus 4.5 on quality (68.2 vs 59.6 on the BenchLeader Index), but Claude Opus 4.5 is 2.0× cheaper at $10.00 vs $20.00 per 1M tokens blended. Choose Claude Opus 4.5 for agents & tools (75 vs 70) and knowledge (58 vs 56), where it also streams ~1.5× faster; choose GPT-6 Astra for fast first answers (3.0 s vs 14.2 s) and reasoning (86 vs 57), coding (83 vs 61), and maths (78 vs 64).

Key facts (as of 29 Oct 2026)

  • Claude Opus 4.5 scores 59.6 on the BenchLeader Index and GPT-6 Astra scores 68.2 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
  • Claude Opus 4.5 costs $10.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
  • GPT-6 Astra costs $20.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
  • Claude Opus 4.5 streams ~1.5× faster than GPT-6 Astra (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 29 Oct 2026).
  • Of the 2 benchmarks both models have, GPT-6 Astra leads 2 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
Claude Opus 4.5 benchmarks thinking Anthropic GPT-6 Astra benchmarks OpenAIOpen in the comparison tool

Which to pick for…

The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.

Use casePickWhyConfidence
CodingGPT-6 Astra83 vs 61 category scoreHigh
Agents & tool useClaude Opus 4.575 vs 70 category scoreMedium
MathsGPT-6 Astra78 vs 64 category scoreHigh
ReasoningGPT-6 Astra86 vs 57 category scoreHigh
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558 vs 56 category score; PRBench Finance 46.2% vs 47.5%Medium
Lowest costClaude Opus 4.5$10.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.400 vs $0.800–
Fastest first answerGPT-6 Astra3.0 s (GPT-6 Astra) vs 14.2 s (Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking)) to the first answer token–
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • GPT-6 Astra leads on quality: 68.2 vs 59.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) is stronger in agents & tools, instruction following, knowledge, long context, multimodal.
  • GPT-6 Astra is stronger in coding, maths, reasoning, composite.
  • Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) is 2.0× cheaper ($10.00 vs $20.00 per 1M blended).
  • Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) streams 1.5× faster (60 vs 40 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecClaude Opus 4.5GPT-6 Astra
DeveloperAnthropicOpenAI
Released24 Nov 20252 Sept 2026
Context window (tokens)200,0001,050,000
Compared atClaude Opus 4.5 (thinking)GPT-6 Astra
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$5.00 / $25.00 / $0.500$10.00 / $50.00 / $1.00

Category by category

Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.

CategoryClaude Opus 4.5 (thinking)GPT-6 AstraLeader
Reasoning57.485.6GPT-6 Astra
Coding60.583.2GPT-6 Astra
Agents & tools74.769.6Claude Opus 4.5
Maths64.077.5GPT-6 Astra
Knowledge58.155.7Claude Opus 4.5
Instruction following53.0–not comparable
Multimodal57.1–not comparable
Long context63.4–not comparable
Composite–73.7not comparable

Where sources disagree

Across the 2 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.5 leads 0, GPT-6 Astra leads 2. Every overall index that rates both puts GPT-6 Astra ahead.

Overall indexClaude Opus 4.5 (thinking)GPT-6 AstraLeader
BenchLeader Index59.668.2GPT-6 Astra
Arena Text1474†1477GPT-6 Astra

Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).

Price, speed and latency

List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.

MeasureClaude Opus 4.5 (thinking)GPT-6 Astra
Blended price per 1M tokens$10.00$20.00
Input / output per 1M$5.00 / $25.00$10.00 / $50.00
Cached input per 1M$0.500$1.00
Price per task: chat reply$0.0095$0.019
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.075$0.150
Price per task: code edit$0.068$0.135
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.400$0.800
Price per task: structured extraction$0.015$0.030
Output speed60 tok/s40 tok/s
Time to first answer14.2 s3.0 s
Time to a complete answer22.6 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking) scores 59.6 and takes 14 s to its first answer token; Claude Opus 4.5 (high) scores 59.1 in 1 s, Claude Opus 4.5 scores 57.9 in 1 s. GPT-6 Astra scores 68.2 and takes 3 s to its first answer token; GPT-6 Astra (max) scores 67.7 in 232 s, GPT-6 Astra (high) scores 66.8 in 33 s. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.

Every benchmark

188 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.

MetricPublisherClaude Opus 4.5 (thinking)GPT-6 Astra
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader59.668.2
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader74.769.6
Coding scoreBenchLeader60.583.2
Instruction following scoreBenchLeader53.0–
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader58.155.7
Long context scoreBenchLeader63.4–
Maths scoreBenchLeader64.077.5
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader57.1–
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader57.485.6
Composite scoreBenchLeader–73.7
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$10.00$20.00
Output speedBenchLeader60 tok/s40 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader14.2 s3.0 s
Context windowBenchLeader200,000 tokens1,050,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub86.0%†95.8%†
Humanity's Last ExamScale AI / CAIS25.2%†54.8%
SimpleBenchSimpleBench62.0%†–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1498†1501†
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench–92.7%
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench80.1%†92.7%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis86.6%96.1%†
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis30.1%54.7%†
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–63.8%†
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI85.9%–
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark80.2%–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize80.0%97.5%†
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize37.6%95.0%†
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize–98.6%†
CritPtArtificial Analysis4.6%31.7%†
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis–70.5%†
MysteryMechanismVals AI–53.1%†
SciPredictScale AI SEAL23.1%†–
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub14.0%†74.0%†
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub22.0%†84.0%†
CL-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub21.1%†–
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub44.5%†64.1%
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub89.9%†97.1%
ForecastBenchForecastBench64.9%†–
BTF-3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–13.5%†
Show all 188 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Opus 4.5 (thinking)GPT-6 Astra
Coding
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub76.7%†–
SciCodeSciCode–56.5%†
WeirdMLWeirdML63.7%†93.3%†
FrontierCodeCognition–53.3%†
GSO-BenchGSO-Bench26.5%†79.4%
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1523†1543†
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)1469†1774†
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench–93.7%
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench79.7%†80.4%†
LiveCodeBenchVals AI83.7%–
IOIVals AI–100.0%†
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI76.4%–
SWE-Bench ProScale AI SEAL45.9%†–
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)SWE-bench76.8%†–
SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold)SWE-bench79.2%†–
Code MigrationVals AI–67.7%†
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI–80.6%†
ProgramBenchVals AI–5.5%†
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI–43.3%†
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI–27.6%†
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI20.6%89.6%†
SWE-Bench Pro (private)Scale AI SEAL45.9%†–
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL–59.1%†
SWE Atlas: RefactoringScale AI SEAL–59.0%†
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL–50.7%†
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–46.7%†
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–73.2%†
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub1025.4†2951.3†
AlgoTuneAlgoTune1.8†–
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–65.5%†
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis–59.1%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–88.4%†
Startrise FrontendStartrise–79.9%
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–47.0%†
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis–42.4%†
LiveCodeBench (AA)Artificial Analysis87.1%–
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench63.1%†58.2%†
GDPvalOpenAI45.5%†–
CybenchCybench82.0%†–
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS3.8%†20.8%
APEX-AgentsMercor–64.7%
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–14†
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench–77.5%
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench–91.3%
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench39.7%†57.3%†
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis47.0%–
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis89.5%–
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI–87.3%†
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL69.8%†–
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL–65.3%
BFCL OverallBerkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%†–
τ²-benchτ²-bench85.3%†–
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench24.7%†–
GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised scoreArtificial Analysis–53.7%†
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis–1584†
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–41.4%†
ITBench SRE (AA)Artificial Analysis–48.6%†
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis–51.3%†
CUA-benchVals AI–19.2%†
CyberBenchVals AI–41.1%†
Finance Agent v2Vals AI–53.5%†
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI–60.4%†
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI–7.1%†
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI–5.4%†
Legal Research BenchVals AI–39.4%†
Poker AgentVals AI1033.4%†–
Robo-benchVals AI–23.3%†
SREBenchVals AI–56.9%†
Tax Agent BenchVals AI–20.7%†
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)Vals AI53.9%–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI–59.6%†
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI–62.9%†
Time Horizon Index: KSPVals AI–90.5%†
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)–1246†
BALROGBALROG43.0%†68.3%†
DeepResearch BenchDeepResearch Bench54.8%†–
METR Time HorizonsMETR75.0%†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs4967.1†15514.7
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis–68.5%†
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis–31.0%†
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey–8.6%†
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis–1568†
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–63.3%†
CWE-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis–63.3%†
DeepSec-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis–36.9%†
CyberGym end-to-end (AA)Artificial Analysis–0.0%†
DeepSearchQAGoogle24.0%–
FACTS SearchGoogle–89.9%
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub34.4%†93.7%†
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub4.9%†97.6%†
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub86.1%†100.0%†
ProofBenchVals AI36.0%†99.0%
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench90.4%†96.8%†
AIME (Vals)Vals AI95.4%–
MGSMVals AI95.2%–
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1463†1487†
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub45.7%†75.6%†
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–83.0%
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench–85.2%
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench74.4%†83.0%†
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis–42.4†
MMLU-ProVals AI87.3%–
LegalBenchVals AI84.6%–
CorpFinVals AI65.1%–
TaxEvalVals AI74.9%–
MedQAVals AI95.9%–
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL46.2%47.5%
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL44.2%48.4%
MultiNRCScale AI SEAL48.6%–
BioMysteryBenchVals AI–79.3%†
CaseLaw v2Vals AI62.6%–
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI–71.7%†
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI–72.7%†
MedCodeVals AI49.2%48.5%†
MedScribeVals AI85.3%87.9%†
DrugDiscoveryBenchScale AI SEAL–68.7%†
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub14.3%†76.2%†
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–34.2%†
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis–61.6%†
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis–50.2%†
Global-MMLU-Lite (AA)Artificial Analysis91.3%–
HealthBench Professional (AA)OpenAI–66.0%†
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench81.3%†89.4%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench62.5%†75.6%†
IFBenchArtificial Analysis58.0%–
MultiChallengeScale AI SEAL59.0%–
TutorBenchScale AI SEAL51.2%–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1474†1473†
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1470†1477†
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1462†1450†
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1484†1485†
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1492†1489†
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)–1280†
LiveBench DesignLiveBench–82.0%
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis74.0%86.9%†
VISTAScale AI SEAL46.4%–
MMMU (validation)MMMU80.7%†–
MMMU-Pro (official)MMMU73.9%†–
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI83.0%–
MortgageTaxVals AI67.7%–
GeoBenchGeoBench75.0%†–
VPCTEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub40.0%†–
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–49.7%
Code2Video-AAArtificial Analysis–1427†
AA-3DArtificial Analysis–1164†
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis77.3%80.7%†
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)1465†1473†
MLCRArtificial Analysis–41.7%†
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub150.1†168.8
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench–85.6%
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench72.6%†82.2%†
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis–56.9†
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis29.152.7†
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis284.4349.6†
Vals IndexVals AI–65.0†
Vals Finance IndexVals AI–55.6%†
Vals RSI IndexVals AI14.8%†27.1%†
Vals Science IndexVals AI–65.1%†
Vals Router IndexVals AI–65.0%
AA Cyber IndexArtificial Analysis–33.4†
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL9.6%–
MASKScale AI SEAL92.5%–
Metadata
AA Openness IndexArtificial Analysis11.1–

Data as of 2026-10-29. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking): BenchLeader Index 60.1 → 59.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking): 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
  • GPT-6 Astra: 3 score revisions.
  • Claude Opus 4.5 (thinking): 1 new result (Global-MMLU-Lite (AA)).
  • GPT-6 Astra: 1 new result (Vals Router Index).
  • GPT-6 Astra: 1 score revision.
  • GPT-6 Astra: 8 new results (LiveBench 2.0, LiveBench Long Agentic, LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning…).
  • GPT-6 Astra: 1 new result (Startrise Frontend).
  • GPT-6 Astra: BenchLeader Index 68.9 → 68.0.
  • GPT-6 Astra: BenchLeader Index 67.3 → 68.9.

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

Claude Opus 4.5 vs GPT-6 Astra: questions

Is GPT-6 Astra better than Claude Opus 4.5?
GPT-6 Astra leads on quality: 68.2 vs 59.6. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; GPT-6 Astra is ahead overall as of 29 Oct 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
Claude Opus 4.5 vs GPT-6 Astra: which is cheaper, and will that change?
Claude Opus 4.5 is cheaper today: $10.00 against $20.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 or GPT-6 Astra better for coding?
GPT-6 Astra scores higher in coding (83 vs 61 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.5 or GPT-6 Astra?
Claude Opus 4.5 streams ~1.5× faster (60 vs 40 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
Is Claude Opus 4.5 or GPT-6 Astra better for agents and tool use?
Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in agentic tasks (75 vs 70 on the category index, where 50 is average).
More questions (4)
Which is better for long documents?
GPT-6 Astra accepts more context: 1,050,000 against 200,000 tokens for Claude Opus 4.5.
Which has lower latency?
GPT-6 Astra answers first: 3.0 s against 14.2 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Opus 4.5 vs GPT-6 Astra?
Across the 2 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.5 leads 0, GPT-6 Astra leads 2. Every overall index that rates both puts GPT-6 Astra ahead.
When was GPT-6 Astra released?
GPT-6 Astra was released on 2 Sept 2026.