Compare · ModelsLive · 3 picked · head to head
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs GPT-5.3-Codex
Side by side · benchmarks, pricing, and signals you can act on.
Winner summary
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) wins on 6/12 benchmarks
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) wins 6 of 12 shared benchmarks. Leads in speed · agentic · arena.
Category leads
speed·Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)agentic·Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)arena·Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)knowledge·GPT-5.3-Codexcoding·GPT-5.3-Codex
Hype vs Reality
Attention vs performance
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
#170 by perf·#7 by attention
Claude Sonnet 4.6
#149 by perf·#10 by attention
GPT-5.3-Codex
#73 by perf·#4 by attention
Best value
GPT-5.3-Codex
1.4x better value than Claude Sonnet 4.6
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
0.5 pts/$
$90.00/M
Claude Sonnet 4.6
5.1 pts/$
$9.00/M
GPT-5.3-Codex
7.1 pts/$
$7.88/M
Vendor risk
Who is behind the model
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
Anthropic
$965.0B·Tier 1
OpenAI
$840.0B·Tier 1
Head to head
12 benchmarks · 3 models
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)Claude Sonnet 4.6GPT-5.3-Codex
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) leads by +5.4
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?"
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
67.6
Claude Sonnet 4.6
40.8
GPT-5.3-Codex
62.2
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +9.9
Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads.
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
48.1
Claude Sonnet 4.6
63.0
GPT-5.3-Codex
53.1
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) leads by +5.7
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
53.0
Claude Sonnet 4.6
47.2
GPT-5.3-Codex
32.5
SWE Atlas · Codebase QnA
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) leads by +0.7
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
33.3
Claude Sonnet 4.6
31.2
GPT-5.3-Codex
32.6
APEX-Agents
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +11.3
APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
43.0
GPT-5.3-Codex
31.7
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) leads by +20.8
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
1542.2
Claude Sonnet 4.6
1521.4
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) leads by +31.5
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
1503.7
Claude Sonnet 4.6
1472.2
PostTrainBench
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +1.3
Claude Sonnet 4.6
16.4
GPT-5.3-Codex
17.8
SWE Atlas · Test Writing
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) leads by +4.9
Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast)
36.7
Claude Sonnet 4.6
31.8
SWE-Bench verified
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads by +0.4
SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
75.2
GPT-5.3-Codex
74.8
Terminal Bench
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +25.0
Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
53.4
GPT-5.3-Codex
78.4
WeirdML
GPT-5.3-Codex leads by +13.2
WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
66.1
GPT-5.3-Codex
79.3
Full benchmark table
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | GPT-5.3-Codex |
|---|---|---|---|
Artificial Analysis · Agentic Index Artificial Analysis Agentic Index · a composite score measuring how well a model performs in agentic workflows · multi-step tool use, planning, error recovery, and autonomous task completion. Aggregates results from multiple agentic benchmarks including SWE-bench, tool-use tests, and planning evaluations. The canonical single-number metric for "how good is this model as an agent?" | 67.6 | 40.8 | 62.2 |
Artificial Analysis · Coding Index Artificial Analysis Coding Index · a composite score that aggregates performance across multiple coding benchmarks into a single index. Tracks code generation quality, debugging ability, multi-language competence, and real-world software engineering tasks. Used by Artificial Analysis to rank model coding capability in a normalized, comparable format. Useful for developers choosing between models for coding-heavy workloads. | 48.1 | 63.0 | 53.1 |
Artificial Analysis · Quality Index | 53.0 | 47.2 | 32.5 |
SWE Atlas · Codebase QnA | 33.3 | 31.2 | 32.6 |
APEX-Agents APEX-Agents · evaluates AI agents on complex, multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and autonomous decision-making in realistic environments. | — | 43.0 | 31.7 |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Coding | 1542.2 | 1521.4 | — |
Chatbot Arena Elo · Overall | 1503.7 | 1472.2 | — |
PostTrainBench | — | 16.4 | 17.8 |
SWE Atlas · Test Writing | 36.7 | 31.8 | — |
SWE-Bench verified SWE-bench Verified · 500 human-validated tasks from 12 real Python repositories (Django, Flask, scikit-learn, sympy, and others). Each task requires the model to produce a git patch that resolves a real GitHub issue and passes the test suite. The verified subset eliminates ambiguous tasks from the original SWE-bench. Claude Mythos Preview leads at 93.9%, crossing 90% for the first time in 2026. Opus 4.6 scores 80.8%. The benchmark remains the most-cited evaluation for code-generation capability. | — | 75.2 | 74.8 |
Terminal Bench Terminal-Bench 2.0 · evaluates AI agents on real terminal-based coding tasks · writing scripts, debugging, running tests, and managing projects entirely through command-line interaction. Tests both code quality and terminal fluency. Claude Opus 4.7 scores 69.4%, demonstrating significant agentic terminal competence. | — | 53.4 | 78.4 |
WeirdML WeirdML · tests models on unusual and adversarial machine learning tasks that require creative problem-solving beyond standard patterns. | — | 66.1 | 79.3 |
Pricing · per 1M tokens · projected $/mo at 10M tokens
| Model | Input | Output | Context | Projected $/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $30.00 | $150.00 | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | $600.00 | |
| $3.00 | $15.00 | 1.0M tokens (~500 books) | $60.00 | |
| $1.75 | $14.00 | 400K tokens (~200 books) | $48.13 |
People also compared