The question isn't "which is cheaper" — it's "which is cheaper for your specific workload." Claude and OpenAI price differently across input vs output, cache vs uncached, batch vs realtime. A workload that favors Sonnet 4.6 on input cost might favor GPT-5.4 on output. A workload with heavy caching might shift the answer entirely.
This calculator shows all current Claude and GPT models side-by-side on the same prompt and the same volume. Token counts are exact: tiktoken for OpenAI (client-side), Anthropic's count_tokens API for Claude. Pricing is verified against vendor pricing pages on the date shown.
Toggle prompt caching and Batch API to see how the comparison shifts under realistic production conditions.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude or GPT cheaper for chatbots?
For typical chatbot workloads (30k req/mo, 500 tokens each direction, 70% caching), GPT-5.4 lands at ~$239/mo and Claude Sonnet 4.6 at ~$242/mo — essentially tied. GPT-5.5 doubles to ~$478/mo.
Which is cheaper for long context?
Claude. Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6, and Sonnet 4.6 all support 1M context at flat pricing. Gemini 2.5 Pro doubles at 200K. GPT-5.5 supports 1M flat.
Which has better prompt caching?
Both offer 90% off cached input. Anthropic offers two cache durations (5-minute at 1.25× write, 1-hour at 2× write). OpenAI is simpler — one cache tier.
Which is cheaper for batch processing?
Both offer 50% Batch API discounts. The cheaper choice depends on the base rates — Sonnet 4.6 batch ($1.50/$7.50) beats GPT-5.4 batch ($1.25/$7.50) on input, loses on output.
Should I use Claude or GPT for code generation?
Different cost profile here: Claude Opus 4.7's tokenizer produces up to 46% more tokens on code. GPT-5.5 has lower tokenizer overhead on code but 2× the price. Run an eval on your codebase.