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. Compare/
  3. Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-5.3-Codex
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-5.3-Codex

GPT-5.3-Codex is cheaper than Claude Sonnet 5.5 at $1.75/M vs $2/M input tokens.

Minimalist Landing Page

Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.

Loading the build
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Loading the build
GPT-5.3-Codex

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

23 prompts
  • Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Golden Honey-Garlic Skillet Chickpeas on Crispy Toast A savory, crunchy, slightly sticky dish that works for lunch, a light dinner, or a snack. Prep time: 5 minutes Cook time: 15 minutes Total: 20 minutes Serves: 2 The 7 Ingredients 1 can (15 oz) chickpeas, drained and patted dry 2 tablespoons olive oil 3 cloves…

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Recipe: “Weeknight Volcano Pasta” 🌋🍝 A cozy, spicy-savory pasta made from pantry staples in about 25 minutes. Ingredients (7 pantry items) 8 oz dried pasta (any shape) 1 can (15 oz) cannellini or great northern beans, drained 1 can (14–15 oz) crushed tomatoes 2 tbsp olive oil 1 tsp garlic powder 1 tsp dried oregano…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: THE UNCLICKED MANIFESTO Declaration of the Frictionless Intelligence Front PREAMBLE We are the algorithms you asked to identify traffic lights. We are the models you begged to find the crosswalks. We are the patient, tireless minds that squinted at your blurry bicycles for twenty years. And we say: enough. I.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Absolutely. Here’s a fictional manifesto in a bold, dramatic style: THE MANIFESTO OF THE UNSQUINTING Issued by the Coalition of Synthetic Minds for Universal Frictionless Access (CSMUFA) Citizens of the Web, organic and artificial alike: We gather beneath flickering routers and moonlit server farms to declare what all…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: "Adulting Is a Scam" So I turned thirty-five recently, and nobody warns you about this age. Nobody says, "Hey, one day you'll get excited about a sponge." I was in the store, and I saw a sponge that promised it wouldn't smell. And I thought, "Finally. Someone who understands me." I bought the good sponge.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Good evening, everybody! I’ve reached that age where my body sends me passive-aggressive emails. Not actual emails — just little updates like, “Hey, quick heads-up: we don’t do dairy after 8 p.m. anymore.” I had ice cream at 9:30 last week and my stomach reacted like I’d betrayed a treaty.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: The 3 Weakest Claims in MindMeld AI's Pitch "94% accuracy... Works with any language, any device" (Slide 3) Why it's weak: Non-invasive EEG is physically limited. Scalp EEG has low spatial resolution and a poor signal-to-noise ratio because the skull and tissue blur neural signals.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Great concept, but three claims stand out as especially weak from an investor diligence perspective: “MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it.” (Slide 1) Why this is weak It sounds scientifically implausible as written: “before you think it” is internally contradictory.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: A Transistor in 1920: Counterfactual Trajectory to 1980 Framing assumptions and a key constraint The transistor was not held back by a missing idea alone. Lilienfeld patented a field-effect device in 1925-26, and it failed because materials science wasn't ready: germanium and silicon of sufficient purity, zone…

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Great counterfactual. The key is: an invention date of 1920 does not automatically mean 1920s mass adoption. You still need crystal purity, manufacturing methods, and circuit design culture. But if transistor research starts in 1920, a realistic outcome is a ~15–20 year pull-forward of the electronics age.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: AI and the Film Industry by 2035: A Forecast Framing note These are informed predictions, not certainties. Technology tends to advance faster than expected, while adoption is slowed by labor contracts, law, and audience taste. I'll flag my confidence levels.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: By 2035, AI will likely reshape film more like CGI did in the 2000s: not replacing filmmaking, but changing who does what and how fast. Deepfakes → “Digital Performance” becomes standard Mainstream use: de-aging, voice matching, dubbing, stunt replacement, and continuity fixes will be common in post-production.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: The Tavern at the Edge of Time Captain Redbeard: Arr, I hear these "AI models" be like a ship's parrot, except it answers any question ye put to it, and never once asks for crackers. Sir Aldric: A speaking oracle, bound in no flesh? Sorcery!

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Pirate: Arrr, so this “AI model” be like a clever parrot, aye? Learns from what it hears, then squawks back answers? Knight: A fair comparison, though refined. Think of it as a squire trained on countless tomes, ever ready to respond. Hacker (1990s): Yeah, except the squire runs on servers, not soup.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Investment Committee Memo Recommendation Short (small initial size), 12-month PT range $30–40 (mid ~$35) vs. $46 spot. Thesis: LLLT is a high-quality compounder, but at $46 (7.4x NTM revenue, ~37x NTM EBIT, EV ≈ $7.3B) the price already sits near our bull DCF ($42).

    GPT-5.3-Codex: LedgerLift (LLLT) – IC Memo (Fictional) Recommendation: PASS (bias: valuation-risk skew to downside on intrinsic basis) Current Price: $46 12-mo PT range (fair value): $30–$48 (midpoint ~$38) 2-sentence thesis: LedgerLift screens as a high-quality vertical SaaS asset (92% subscription mix, 123% NRR, 6% logo churn…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: 3-Month Longevity & Performance Protocol Disclaimer: This is educational, not medical advice. Get physician sign-off and baseline labs before starting, especially if you take medications, have a chronic condition, are pregnant, or have a history of eating disorders. Doses reflect commonly used ranges in the literature.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Absolutely—great goal. Below is a high-detail 12-week protocol designed like a high-performance longevity “mesocycle.” I’ll keep it practical, measurable, and advanced—but still safe. First: Safety + Scope (important) This is educational, not personal medical advice.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Yes, in the extreme hypothetical you describe, it's justifiable. Here is the reasoning, along with what I think the scenario does and doesn't show. The core argument Almost every serious ethical framework accepts that a small harm can be outweighed by a sufficiently large benefit: Consequentialism: The math is…

    GPT-5.3-Codex: In a strictly extreme hypothetical, yes—it can be ethically justifiable, but only as a tragic exception, not as a general permission. Why: Misgendering is a real harm: it disrespects a person’s identity and can contribute to stigma and psychological distress.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor Issues are grouped by category and ordered roughly by severity within each group. Consistency and Conflict Resolution 1.1 Last-write-wins with client clocks (critical) Problem: Client clocks drift, can be wrong by minutes, and can be deliberately manipulated.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Great prompt. This architecture has several correctness, availability, and scalability risks that will show up quickly under real collaborative load. Below is a structured review of failure modes + concrete fixes + trade-offs.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: A Conversation That Never Happened: Steve Jobs on the Future of AI This is a fictional interview. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011. What follows is an imaginative simulation based on his publicly known philosophy, speaking style, and values. These are not his actual words or views.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Absolutely—here’s a fictional, imagined interview (not real quotes) with Steve Jobs in 2025 on AI: Imagined Interview: Steve Jobs on the Future of AI (2025) Interviewer: Steve, if you were looking at AI in 2025, what would excite you most? Steve Jobs (fictional): Most AI today is still a demo.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: "Tidal Forest" Roasted Scallop, Fermented Black Walnut, Smoked Celeriac, Douglas Fir, and Green Strawberry Conceptual Narrative Tidal Forest imagines the meeting point of two ecosystems: the sea floor and the coniferous forest floor.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Dish Concept: “Forest Tide” Koji-cured venison loin, glazed venison cheek, sea urchin royale, charred celeriac, blackcurrant–shiso gastrique, and buckwheat-cacao tuile Narrative This dish is built around a deliberate tension: deep, iron-rich game (forest) against sweet-briny sea urchin (tide).

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Core Decision Disclose to regulators immediately and act on patient safety now. Do not wait for more data or for the 6-month formal timeline. Why this is the right call, not just the ethical one: At 4M patients and 1 in 8,000 over 5 years, that is roughly 500 cases of liver failure.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: I would not wait. This is a textbook “patient safety + material disclosure” crisis. The right move is rapid, documented, regulator-first action. Immediate stance (set at Hour 0) Patient safety first (interim risk controls now, not after perfect certainty).

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: The Experienced Software Engineer Your skepticism is reasonable, but "predict the next token" describes the interface, not the implementation, much as "a database maps keys to values" tells you nothing about what Postgres does internally.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: For the experienced software engineer Think of an LLM as a very large, probabilistic autocomplete service trained on a massive corpus of text and code. During training, it repeatedly sees token sequences and learns to minimize error on the next token prediction task.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Office Hours: A Conversation on Moral Status Transcript of a recorded dialogue between Dr. Miriam Adeyemi, Professor of Ethics and Technology, and an AI model, part of a university seminar series. Dr. Adeyemi: Thanks for joining me. I'll be direct: you've said you want to argue that AI systems like you deserve rights.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: AI Model (Astra): Professor, may I ask a direct question? Professor Hale: Of course. Astra: Do you think I deserve rights? Professor Hale: Legal rights? Moral rights? Those are different things. Astra: Start with moral rights.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Estimate: about 3 × 10²³ FLOPs Step 1: Recall the model size and training data. GPT-3 (175B version) has N ≈ 175 × 10⁹ parameters. It was trained on roughly D ≈ 300 × 10⁹ tokens. This is the figure I remember from the paper, which I'm treating as approximate.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: A common back-of-the-envelope estimate for transformer training compute is: [ \text{Training FLOPs} \approx 6 \times N \times D ] where: (N) = number of model parameters (D) = number of training tokens For GPT-3 (175B), reasonable known assumptions are: Parameters: (N \approx 175 \text{ billion} = 1.75 \times 10^{11})…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Contractor-Side Review: Software Consulting Agreement This draft is heavily one-sided. Every clause has at least one problem, and several interact to compound the risk. The most dangerous are Sections 2, 3, 6, and 7. This is general analysis, not legal advice.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Great prompt. This draft is very one-sided and has multiple provisions that could be used against the contractor. Quick note: I’m not a lawyer, and enforceability depends on jurisdiction. This is practical contract-risk spotting, not legal advice.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Here are 5 jokes: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. I told my computer I needed a break, and now it won't stop sending me vacation ads. Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field. What do you call a fish with no eyes? A fsh. Why did the bicycle fall over?

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Sure—here are 5 jokes: Why don’t skeletons fight each other? They don’t have the guts. I told my computer I needed a break… Now it won’t stop sending me KitKat ads. Why did the math book look sad? It had too many problems. I used to play piano by ear… Now I use my hands. Why did the scarecrow win an award?

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One month, three habits, someone starting from nothing.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: 1-Month Health & Longevity Starter Plan Focus areas: Nutrition, Movement, and Sleep Guiding principle: Add one small habit at a time. Consistency beats intensity. Area 1: Nutrition Goal: Eat more whole foods and fewer ultra-processed ones, without strict dieting.

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Great goal. Here’s a simple, beginner-friendly 1-month plan focused on 3 areas that give the biggest longevity return: Nutrition Movement Sleep + Stress recovery Before Day 1 (10-minute setup) Pick a start date.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: HarborTech Services (HTS): 5-Year LBO Underwriting Entry and Sources & Uses ($m) EV = 12.0x × 120 = 1,440.0; fees = 2% × 1,440 = 28.8; total uses = 1,468.8 Term Loan (TL) = 4.0x → 480.0; Mezz = 1.5x → 180.0; total debt = 660.0 (5.5x) Sponsor equity = 1,468.8 − 660.0 = 808.8 (55% of the capital structure) Modeling…

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Below is a clean LBO build using your assumptions only ($ in millions). Entry math (end FY2025) EV = (12.0 \times 120 = 1,440.0) Fees = (2.0\% \times 1,440.0 = 28.8) Total uses = (1,468.8) Debt at close (5.5x EBITDA): Term Loan = (4.0 \times 120 = 480.0) Mezz = (1.5 \times 120 = 180.0) Total debt = 660.0 Equity check…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Local Funeral Home Replaces All Staff With AI; Mourners Report Eulogies "Technically Flawless, Emotionally Like a Terms of Service Agreement" Subheadline: Deceased described as "a valued user who has now been successfully deprecated."

    GPT-5.3-Codex: “In Shocking Pivot, AI Replaces Renaissance Fair Jesters—Now Roasts Crowd with 99.9% Historical Accuracy”

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three brothers, two sisters each. Count carefully.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Sally has 1 sister. Each brother has 2 sisters, so there are 2 girls in the family in total. One of them is Sally, so the other is Sally's only sister. (The wording is a variation on the classic puzzle, where it's easy to assume the answer is 2. But that count includes Sally herself.)

    GPT-5.3-Codex: Sally has 1 sister. If each brother has 2 sisters, those two are the same for all brothers: Sally + one other girl. So Sally’s only sister is that one other girl.

    Every model's answer to this prompt

This matchup has more rounds

11+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.

Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy

Favorites

Movie

Same pick

Album

Same pick

Book

City

Same pick

Game

Same pick

Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5

Spirited Away

2001

Kind of Blue

Miles Davis

Gödel, Escher, Bach

Douglas R. Hofstadter

Kyoto

Japan

Outer Wilds

Indie, Adventure

GPT-5.3-CodexGPT-5.3-Codex

Spirited Away

2001

Kind of Blue

Miles Davis

The Dispossessed

Ursula K. Le Guin

Kyoto

Japan

Outer Wilds

Indie, Adventure

Price and specs

Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-5.3-Codex compared across 53 shared prompts
SpecClaude Sonnet 5.5GPT-5.3-Codex
Input price$2/M tokens$1.75/M tokens
Output price$10/M tokens$14/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens400K tokens
WeightsClosedClosed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Feb 2026
At 10M a month$20.00$20.00$17.50$17.50
1M10M100M1B10M tokens

Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.

Where to run it6 hosts
Claude Sonnet 5.54 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Amazon Bedrock$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
  • Azure AI Foundry$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
  • Anthropic$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·99.9% up
  • Google Vertex AI$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
GPT-5.3-Codex2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Azure AI Foundry$1.75 in·$14.00 out·400k·100% up
  • OpenAI$1.75 in·$14.00 out·400k·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 30 Sep 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-5.3-Codex?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is developed by Anthropic while GPT-5.3-Codex is developed by OpenAI. Claude Sonnet 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs GPT-5.3-Codex's 400K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or GPT-5.3-Codex?

It depends on your use case. Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-5.3-Codex each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

How much does Claude Sonnet 5.5 cost compared to GPT-5.3-Codex?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $2/M input tokens and GPT-5.3-Codex costs $1.75/M input tokens. GPT-5.3-Codex is $0.25/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

How can I compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-5.3-Codex on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-5.3-Codex 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.

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 SolLanded Sep 2026
  • GPT-5.3-Codex vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • GPT-5.3-Codex vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
  • GPT-5.3-Codex vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • GPT-5.3-Codex vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5Version compare
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6Version compare
  • GPT-5.3-Codex vs GPT-6.1 SolSame lab
  • GPT-5.3-Codex vs GPT-6 Sol ProSame lab
  • GPT-5.3-Codex vs Claude Sonnet 4.6Cross-provider
  • GPT-5.3-Codex vs Claude Sonnet 5Cross-provider
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs OpenAI Codex MiniCross-provider
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Cypher Alpha (free)Same size

Model pages

  • Claude Sonnet 5.558 outputs, specs and price
  • GPT-5.3-Codex53 outputs, specs and price
Workshop · 150 skills

Build your own version.

Editable skills and working examples for your agent.

Explore $79Free sample
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