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 5.5vsSolar Pro 4
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Opus 5.5vsSolar Pro 4

Solar Pro 4 is cheaper than Claude Opus 5.5 at $0.09/M vs $4/M input tokens.

Claude Opus 5.5 and Solar Pro 4 compared across 14 shared prompts
SpecClaude Opus 5.5Solar Pro 4
Input price$4/M tokens$0.09/M tokens
Output price$20/M tokens$0.36/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens524K tokens
WeightsClosed—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Aug 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 14 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

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
Solar Pro 41,638 words
The Premise: The 1920 Solid-State Breakthrough For this scenario to function, we must assume a functional point-contact or junction transistor is demonstrated in 1920 (perhaps by Lilienfeld or an early Bell Labs precursor), and crucially, that methods for purifying semiconductor materials (germanium/silicon) are solved…
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Claude Opus 5.52,280 words
Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor The most serious problems cluster in three areas: the sync model (client-clock LWW), cross-server propagation (per-server WebSockets with DB polling), and the CDN/auth layer, which can leak data between users. Issues are grouped by area below.
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,598 words
This architecture contains several fundamental mismatches between real-time collaborative editing requirements and the chosen patterns. Below is a systematic breakdown of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, each with a targeted solution and explicit trade-offs.
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
Solar Pro 41,382 words
Disclaimer: I am an AI assistant and not an attorney. The following analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract laws vary significantly by jurisdiction (e.g., state, country).
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
Solar Pro 41,851 words
As CEO, my overriding duty is to balance patient safety, legal/regulatory compliance, fiduciary responsibility, and long-term corporate survival. A 1-in-8,000 risk of liver failure is rare but severe, potentially fatal, and materially unexpected relative to the current label.
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
Solar Pro 4294 words
🍝 Golden Umami Silk Noodles A savory-sweet pasta dish that transforms basic pantry staples into a glossy, flavorful meal. It's quick, comforting, and relies on the balance of soy, honey, and butter for a rich sauce without needing fresh produce.
Read the full answer

Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)

You are writing an internal investment committee memo for a long/short equity fund. Company (fictional): LedgerLift (ticker: LLLT) – B2B…

Claude Opus 5.51,335 words
IC Memo: LedgerLift (LLLT): Short, Starter Size, Hedged vs. Peer Basket Fictional exercise. Not investment advice. Recommendation Short (starter size, 1–1.5% gross), paired against a long basket of Peers A, B and C. 12-month price target range: $36–42 (current price $46, implying 9–22% downside). Thesis.
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,052 words
INTERNAL MEMO – INVESTMENT COMMITTEE TO: IC Members FROM: Long/Short Equity Desk DATE: Oct 2024 SUBJECT: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Initiation / Long Recommendation & Thesis Recommendation: LONG 12-Month PT Range: $52–$58 (Base case ~$54, Bull ~$68, Bear ~$38) Thesis: LedgerLift is a structurally advantaged mid-market AP…
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5
Solar Pro 4
Solar Pro 4Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Opus 5.5 has the edge: newer, bigger context window, major provider backing.

Solar Pro 4 costs 56x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Claude Opus 5.5
Input
$4.00
Output
$20.00
Solar Pro 4
Input
$0.09
44× cheaper
Output
$0.36
56× cheaper

Solar Pro 4 is cheaper on both: 44× input, 56× output.

Where to run it

5 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
Solar Pro 41 host
HostInOutContextUptime
UUpstage$0.09 in·$0.36 out·524k·99.8% 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 Solar Pro 4 is developed by Upstage. Claude Opus 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs Solar Pro 4's 524K. You can compare their actual outputs across 14 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 5.5 and Solar Pro 4 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 14 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4/M input tokens and Solar Pro 4 costs $0.09/M input tokens. Solar Pro 4 is $3.91/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 Solar Pro 4 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
Solar Pro 4 logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
Solar Pro 4 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
Solar Pro 4 logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoCommand A+ logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
Solar Pro 4 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
Solar Pro 4 logoGPT-6 Luna logo
Solar Pro 4 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
Solar Pro 4 logoSolar Mini 4 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Solar Mini 4Same lab
Solar Pro 4 logoSolar Pro 3 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Solar Pro 3Same lab
Solar Pro 4 logoMistral Small Creative logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Mistral Small CreativeNew provider
Solar Pro 4 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Muse Glimmer 30BNew provider
Solar Pro 4 logoMuse Spark 1.1 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Muse Spark 1.1Same size
Solar Pro 4 logoMuse Spark 1.3 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Muse Spark 1.3Same size

Model pages

Claude Opus 5.5 logo
Claude Opus 5.519 outputs, specs and price
Solar Pro 4 logo
Solar Pro 414 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