Loading...
OpenAI · Anthropic — Interactive pricing comparison
o3 outscores Opus 4 on every benchmark — coding 70 vs 60, reasoning 79 vs 68, math 85 vs 72 — while costing $2/$8 against Opus 4's $15/$75. The only thing Opus 4 buys that o3 cannot is computer-use.
OpenAI
Anthropic
o3 is 89% cheaper at this usage
Both models have the same context window
The price gap here is difficult to rationalize. o3 charges $2 input and $8 output. Claude Opus 4 charges $15 and $75. That is a 7.5x multiplier on input and a 9.4x multiplier on output. For the same spend on Opus 4, you could run nearly ten equivalent requests through o3.
And o3 is the stronger model. Coding: 70 versus 60. Reasoning: 79 versus 68. Math: 85 versus 72. These are not close calls. o3 leads by double digits on reasoning and math, the hardest dimensions to move. Both have 200K context. Both have vision. Both have function-calling.
So why does Opus 4 exist at this price? Computer-use. Opus 4 can drive a browser, interact with desktop applications, and complete multi-step UI tasks autonomously. o3 cannot. If your workflow requires a model to physically navigate software — filling forms, clicking through interfaces, testing web applications — Opus 4 is one of the few models that can do it. That capability has no benchmark score, but for teams that need it, no amount of reasoning points substitutes.
The other factor is output character. Opus 4 produces more deliberate, layered prose — useful for analysis, documentation, or tasks where the reader cares about nuance beyond just correctness. o3 optimizes for precision and concision. Neither style is wrong; they serve different audiences.
o3 for any task measured by correctness, speed, or cost. Opus 4 when you need computer-use or when the task specifically rewards careful, extended reasoning in natural language. Most teams paying Opus 4 rates without using computer-use should audit whether o3 covers their needs.
Last updated June 2026