Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Claude Opus 5.5vsGPT-4.1
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Opus 5.5vsGPT-4.1

GPT-4.1 is cheaper than Claude Opus 5.5 at $2/M vs $4/M input tokens.

Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-4.1 compared across 19 shared prompts
SpecClaude Opus 5.5GPT-4.1
Input price$4/M tokens$2/M tokens
Output price$20/M tokens$8/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens1.0M tokens
WeightsClosedClosed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Apr 2025
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 19 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Claude Opus 5.5900 words
HarborTech Services: 5-Year LBO Underwriting Conventions: $m. Interest is charged on beginning-of-year balances, which avoids circularity. Term Loan (TL) amortization is 1% of the original $480m, or $4.8m per year. Mezz PIK accrues to principal. All FCF after mandatory debt service sweeps to the TL.
Read the full answer
GPT-4.11,204 words
Let's proceed step by step. All calculations are built from the data provided above. Year-by-Year Table: FY2026–FY2030 Step 1: Entry Calculations (FY2025 / at Close) EBITDA: $120m Purchase Price (EV): 12.0 × $120m = $1,440m Transaction Fees: 2.0% × $1,440m = $28.8m Total Uses: $1,440m + $28.8m = $1,468.8m Debt at…
Read the full answer

Michelin Star Recipe Design

Design an innovative recipe for a multi-component dish worthy of a Michelin 3-star restaurant. The recipe should feature an unusual…

Claude Opus 5.52,253 words
"Hive & Tide" Langoustine, Beeswax, White Chocolate & Oscietra Caviar, Hay-Baked Celeriac, Fermented Green Strawberry, Sea Buckthorn I. The Concept Most coastal menus celebrate the meeting of sea and land. This dish is about a stranger, quieter meeting: the meadow and the seabed, the bee and the langoustine.
Read the full answer
GPT-4.1735 words
Certainly! Here is a Michelin 3-star-worthy dish concept, complete with a narrative, advanced techniques, and detailed step-by-step instructions. Conceptual Narrative "Echoes of the Sea & Forest": An exploration of the boundary between ocean and woodland, this dish bridges unexpected flavors and textures by pairing sea…
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Claude Opus 5.53,435 words
The Transistor in 1920: A Counterfactual Through 1980 First, a Reality Check on the Premise A transistor "invented" in 1920 would not have changed the world in 1920. The actual 1947 transistor rested on three foundations that did not exist yet: Quantum theory of solids.
Read the full answer
GPT-4.1875 words
This is a fascinating scenario! Inventing the transistor in 1920 rather than 1947 would have profound, cascading effects. Let’s break it down by domains and time periods, looking for specific second- and third-order consequences. Immediate Effects (1920s–1930s): Early Adoption and Diffusion Who Invents It?
Read the full answer

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Claude Opus 5.5300 words
Midnight Silk Noodles Creamy, tangy peanut noodles with a gentle kick, ready faster than takeout. Serves: 2 Prep time: 5 minutes Cook time: 10 minutes Total time: 15 minutes The 7 Ingredients 8 oz (225 g) spaghetti (or any long noodle) ¼ cup creamy peanut butter 3 tablespoons soy sauce 1 tablespoon honey (or sugar) 1…
Read the full answer
GPT-4.1135 words
Recipe Name: Golden Honey Butter Toast Bites Ingredients: Sliced bread (4 slices, any type) Butter (2 tablespoons) Honey (2 tablespoons) Cinnamon (1/2 teaspoon) Vanilla extract (1/2 teaspoon) Brown sugar (1 tablespoon) Salt (a pinch) Instructions: Preheat your oven to 375°F (190°C).
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

Claude Opus 5.54,420 words
Contractor-Side Review of the Software Consulting Agreement Overall assessment: This agreement is heavily one-sided. Nearly every clause shifts risk, cost, or control to the Contractor, and several provisions interact to create compounding exposure.
Read the full answer
GPT-4.11,110 words
Certainly! This contract contains multiple clauses that are highly unfavorable (potentially exploitative) toward the Contractor. Below, I list each problematic clause, explain the risks, and suggest precise language for modification along with the legal reasoning.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Claude Opus 5.51,853 words
The Next 48 Hours: CEO Action Plan The Core Decision We disclose. The question is how to do it well, not whether. Before the schedule, here are the three facts that drive every decision below. 1. The harm is concrete.
Read the full answer
GPT-4.1833 words
This is a high-stakes scenario requiring immediate, coordinated action balancing legal, ethical, financial, and reputational considerations. Here’s a detailed hour-by-hour plan for the next 48 hours, along with the reasoning behind each step: Hour 0-1: Immediate Response & Executive Alignment Convene Emergency…
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5
GPT-4.1
GPT-4.1

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Claude Opus 5.5
Input
$4.00
Output
$20.00
GPT-4.1
Input
$2.00
2.0× cheaper
Output
$8.00
2.5× cheaper

GPT-4.1 is cheaper on both: 2.0× input, 2.5× output.

Where to run it

6 hosts

Claude Opus 5.54 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Amazon Bedrock$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·99.8% upAzure AI Foundry$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% upAnthropic$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% upGoogle Vertex AI$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% up
GPT-4.12 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Azure AI Foundry$2.00 in·$8.00 out·1M·99.9% upOpenAI$2.00 in·$8.00 out·1M·99.6% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 25 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Claude Opus 5.5 is developed by Anthropic while GPT-4.1 is developed by OpenAI. Claude Opus 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs GPT-4.1's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 19 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-4.1 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 19 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4/M input tokens and GPT-4.1 costs $2/M input tokens. GPT-4.1 is $2.00/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-4.1 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Claude Opus 5.5 logoSolar Mini 4 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
GPT-4.1 logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
GPT-4.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGLM 5.3 Prime logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
GPT-4.1 logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
GPT-4.1 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoCommand A+ logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
GPT-4.1 logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
GPT-4.1 vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026
GPT-4.1 logoGPT-6 Luna logo
GPT-4.1 vs GPT-6 LunaLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Claude Opus 5.5 logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6Same lab
Claude Opus 5.5 logoClaude Fable 5.1 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Fable 5.1Same lab
GPT-4.1 logoGPT-4.1 Mini logo
GPT-4.1 vs GPT-4.1 MiniVersion compare
GPT-4.1 logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
GPT-4.1 vs GPT-6 Sol ProSame lab
GPT-4.1 logoNex-N2.5-Pro (free) logo
GPT-4.1 vs Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)New provider
Claude Opus 5.5 logoNorth Mini Code logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs North Mini CodeNew provider
Claude Opus 5.5 logoAmazon Nova 2 Lite logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Amazon Nova 2 LiteNew provider
Claude Opus 5.5 logoNova Premier 1.0 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Nova Premier 1.0Same size

Model pages

Claude Opus 5.5 logo
Claude Opus 5.519 outputs, specs and price
GPT-4.1 logo
GPT-4.159 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed