Head-to-head · frontier vs frontier

Claude Opus 4.5 vs o4 Reasoning: which model should you choose?

We compared Claude Opus 4.5 and o4 Reasoning on price, context window and 12 benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.5 has the stronger average benchmark score; Claude Opus 4.5 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis.

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.5

Claude Opus 4.5 is a frontier model from Anthropic. It offers a 400,000-token context window, costs $19.42 per million input tokens and $75.27 per million output tokens, and averages 87.7 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$19.42 / 1M
Output
$75.27 / 1M
Context
400,000
Avg score
87.7
Open weights
No
Full Claude Opus 4.5 page
OpenAI

o4 Reasoning

o4 Reasoning is a frontier model from OpenAI. It offers a 1,000,000-token context window, costs $19.69 per million input tokens and $103.53 per million output tokens, and averages 87.5 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$19.69 / 1M
Output
$103.53 / 1M
Context
1,000,000
Avg score
87.5
Open weights
No
Full o4 Reasoning page

Specification comparison

SpecClaude Opus 4.5o4 ReasoningEdge
Input price / 1M$19.42$19.69A
Output price / 1M$75.27$103.53A
Context window400,0001,000,000B
Max output4,096128,000B
Average score87.787.5A
Arena Elo1491.21472.2A
Open weightsNoNoTie

Benchmark comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 wins 6, o4 Reasoning wins 5, and 1 benchmarks are tied. The table shows the modelled score for each model and the gap.

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5o4 ReasoningGapWinner
MMLU-Pro87.086.10.9Claude Opus 4.5
GPQA Diamond81.784.02.3o4 Reasoning
SWE-bench Verified77.176.40.7Claude Opus 4.5
HumanEval93.790.23.5Claude Opus 4.5
MATH-50093.794.81.1o4 Reasoning
AIME 202589.890.30.5o4 Reasoning
LiveCodeBench85.083.41.6Claude Opus 4.5
IFEval92.594.52.0o4 Reasoning
TruthfulQA88.189.00.9o4 Reasoning
HellaSwag92.492.40.0Tie
MMMU84.281.82.4Claude Opus 4.5
Arena Elo1491.21472.219.0Claude Opus 4.5

Price analysis

On a blended 3:1 input-to-output basis, Claude Opus 4.5 costs about $33.38 per million tokens and o4 Reasoning costs about $40.65. Claude Opus 4.5 is roughly 18% cheaper than o4 Reasoning. At high volume, that gap compounds quickly, so price should carry real weight unless the quality difference is decisive.

o4 Reasoning has the larger context window at 1,000,000 tokens, compared with 400,000 for Claude Opus 4.5. That matters for long documents, large codebases and multi-step agent traces.

Verdict

Across 12 shared benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.5 wins 6, o4 Reasoning wins 5, and 1 are tied. On the index average, Claude Opus 4.5 leads o4 Reasoning by 0.2 points (87.7 versus 87.5).

The price picture favours Claude Opus 4.5. The context picture favours o4 Reasoning. Those two dimensions often matter more than a few benchmark points once a model is good enough for the task.

If you need a single default, start with Claude Opus 4.5 for quality-sensitive work, and check whether its price holds at your expected volume before committing.

Choose Claude Opus 4.5 if

  • You want the higher average benchmark score in this index.
  • Unit cost matters and you want the cheaper blended price.

Choose o4 Reasoning if

  • You need the larger 1,000,000-token context window.
  • You need the larger 128,000-token output limit.

FAQ

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than o4 Reasoning?

On the index average, Claude Opus 4.5 leads o4 Reasoning by 0.2 points (87.7 versus 87.5). The better choice depends on price, context and your task. Claude Opus 4.5 wins 6 benchmarks, o4 Reasoning wins 5.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or o4 Reasoning?

Claude Opus 4.5 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis at about $33.38 per million tokens, versus $40.65 for o4 Reasoning.

Which has the larger context window?

o4 Reasoning has the larger context window at 1,000,000 tokens. Claude Opus 4.5 has 400,000 tokens.

Are these models open weights?

Claude Opus 4.5 is proprietary; o4 Reasoning is proprietary.

Which should I choose for production?

If you need a single default, start with Claude Opus 4.5 for quality-sensitive work, and check whether its price holds at your expected volume before committing.

Related comparisons