How Many Tokens?

← Back to counter

Claude Opus 4.7 vs GPT-4o

SpecClaude Opus 4.7GPT-4o
ProviderAnthropicOpenAI
Input price (per 1M)$15.00$2.50
Output price (per 1M)$75.00$10.00
Context window200,000128,000
Tokenizer accuracyexact (uses official tokenizer)exact (uses official tokenizer)

Verdict

This isn't a head-to-head — they're priced for different jobs. GPT-4o is the default workhorse for production AI. Claude Opus is the frontier-reasoning premium model you reach for when output quality measurably matters more than per-call cost.

If you're choosing between them on cost, you almost always want GPT-4o. If you're choosing on capability for hard problems, you might want Opus.

Cost example

For a 1,000-token prompt with a 200-token reply:

GPT-4o:       1000 × $2.50/M + 200 × $10/M = $0.0045 per call
Claude Opus:  1000 × $15/M  + 200 × $75/M  = $0.030 per call

Opus costs ~6.7× more per call. For 1,000,000 calls per month: $4,500 vs $30,000 — a $25,500 difference.

When the Opus premium is worth it

The decision rule: if a 5% quality improvement saves 6× the per-call cost in downstream consequences, Opus pays for itself.

When GPT-4o is enough (almost always)

For most production workloads, GPT-4o is indistinguishable from Opus — and 6× cheaper.

The honest comparison: Opus vs Sonnet vs GPT-4o

If you've ruled in Claude for instruction-following nuance, the relevant comparison is Sonnet vs Opus, not Opus vs GPT-4o:

ModelInputOutputUse for
GPT-4o$2.50$10Most production work
Claude Sonnet$3.00$15When Claude's instruction-following matters
Claude Opus$15$75When Sonnet measurably falls short

Don't reach for Opus before you've measured Sonnet failing on your task.

More comparisons

Compare with your real prompt →