Head-to-head · frontier vs frontier

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs GPT-5.1 Vision: which model should you choose?

We compared Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT-5.1 Vision on price, context window and 12 benchmarks. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the stronger average benchmark score; Claude Sonnet 4.5 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis.

Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is a frontier model from Anthropic. It offers a 400,000-token context window, costs $17.84 per million input tokens and $70.50 per million output tokens, and averages 86.0 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$17.84 / 1M
Output
$70.50 / 1M
Context
400,000
Avg score
86.0
Open weights
No
Full Claude Sonnet 4.5 page
OpenAI

GPT-5.1 Vision

GPT-5.1 Vision is a frontier model from OpenAI. It offers a 400,000-token context window, costs $17.76 per million input tokens and $80.59 per million output tokens, and averages 84.8 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$17.76 / 1M
Output
$80.59 / 1M
Context
400,000
Avg score
84.8
Open weights
No
Full GPT-5.1 Vision page

Specification comparison

SpecClaude Sonnet 4.5GPT-5.1 VisionEdge
Input price / 1M$17.84$17.76B
Output price / 1M$70.50$80.59A
Context window400,000400,000Tie
Max output128,00016,384A
Average score86.084.8A
Arena Elo1478.21462.4A
Open weightsNoNoTie

Benchmark comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins 9, GPT-5.1 Vision wins 3, and 0 benchmarks are tied. The table shows the modelled score for each model and the gap.

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5GPT-5.1 VisionGapWinner
MMLU-Pro88.085.52.5Claude Sonnet 4.5
GPQA Diamond82.678.73.9Claude Sonnet 4.5
SWE-bench Verified74.273.60.6Claude Sonnet 4.5
HumanEval92.789.63.1Claude Sonnet 4.5
MATH-50087.089.12.1GPT-5.1 Vision
AIME 202586.382.43.9Claude Sonnet 4.5
LiveCodeBench82.577.84.7Claude Sonnet 4.5
IFEval91.192.71.6GPT-5.1 Vision
TruthfulQA87.286.90.3Claude Sonnet 4.5
HellaSwag93.092.10.9Claude Sonnet 4.5
MMMU80.983.93.0GPT-5.1 Vision
Arena Elo1478.21462.415.8Claude Sonnet 4.5

Price analysis

On a blended 3:1 input-to-output basis, Claude Sonnet 4.5 costs about $31.00 per million tokens and GPT-5.1 Vision costs about $33.47. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is roughly 7% cheaper than GPT-5.1 Vision. At high volume, that gap compounds quickly, so price should carry real weight unless the quality difference is decisive.

Both models list a 400,000-token context window. That is enough for long documents, large codebases and multi-step agent traces.

Verdict

Across 12 shared benchmarks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins 9, GPT-5.1 Vision wins 3, and 0 are tied. On the index average, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads GPT-5.1 Vision by 1.2 points (86.0 versus 84.8).

The price picture favours Claude Sonnet 4.5. The context picture is effectively a tie. 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 Sonnet 4.5 for quality-sensitive work, and check whether its price holds at your expected volume before committing.

Choose Claude Sonnet 4.5 if

  • You want the higher average benchmark score in this index.
  • Unit cost matters and you want the cheaper blended price.
  • You need the larger 128,000-token output limit.

Choose GPT-5.1 Vision if

  • You prefer OpenAI's tooling or already use it.

FAQ

Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 better than GPT-5.1 Vision?

On the index average, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads GPT-5.1 Vision by 1.2 points (86.0 versus 84.8). The better choice depends on price, context and your task. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins 9 benchmarks, GPT-5.1 Vision wins 3.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or GPT-5.1 Vision?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis at about $31.00 per million tokens, versus $33.47 for GPT-5.1 Vision.

Which has the larger context window?

Both models list a 400,000-token context window.

Are these models open weights?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is proprietary; GPT-5.1 Vision is proprietary.

Which should I choose for production?

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

Related comparisons