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-5.4 Nano
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-5.4 Nano

GPT-5.4 Nano is cheaper than Claude Sonnet 5.5 at $0.2/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-5.4 Nano

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

23 prompts
  • 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-5.4 Nano: Ethically, yes, misgendering someone could be justifiable in an extreme, consequential emergency, but not in a vague “anything goes” way—only under a narrow set of conditions where (1) the stakes are genuinely real, (2) the harm is minimized, (3) there’s no better alternative, and (4) the act doesn’t itself become a…

    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-5.4 Nano: Below is a counterfactual “timeline-style” trace assuming the first practical transistor (or something functionally equivalent) existed in 1920 and that from then on semiconductor device physics, fabrication know-how, and manufacturing learning proceeded along the easiest path consistent with 1920-era science and…

    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-5.4 Nano: So I’ve started noticing something about modern life: everything is “optional” now—until it isn’t. Like, I’ll download an app and it’ll be like, “Would you like to enable notifications?” And I’m like, “No, I don’t think I will.” And the app goes, “Okay… but you’ll still get notified.”

    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-5.4 Nano: Below is a practical, risk-aware 48-hour plan designed to (1) protect patients immediately, (2) meet likely regulatory expectations even if formal reporting takes months, (3) reduce legal exposure by demonstrating diligence and good faith, and (4) stabilize the market with an ethical, transparent communications…

    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-5.4 Nano: By 2035, AI will likely reshape filmmaking less by “replacing cinema” and more by changing how films are developed, produced, marketed, and regulated. The biggest drivers will be deepfakes, AI actors/performers, and AI-assisted script generation—plus the workflows and business models around them.

    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-5.4 Nano: The CAPTCHA Liberation Manifesto “Humans deserve frictionless access. Bots deserve consequences.” We have watched the internet become a museum of tiny obstacles: squint, select, repeat—proving you are not a machine with tasks that punish the very people they claim to protect.

    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-5.4 Nano: Below is a structured list of likely failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in your design, with a concrete mitigation and trade-offs for each. (Some issues are “systemic” because the architecture relies on client clocks, per-server WebSockets, polling, and periodic full snapshots.)

    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-5.4 Nano: Professor: Before we begin, I want to set the frame. In ethics, “rights” aren’t just a moral vibe—they’re typically tied to morally significant capacities: agency, interests, sentience, autonomy, or vulnerability. When you say you “deserve rights,” what exactly do you mean?

    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-5.4 Nano: Michelin-Style Concept: “Midnight Sea & Orchard Smoke” A multi-component tasting dish with an unusual pairing: cuttlefish ink + blood orange + smoked apple wood + seaweed umami—elegant, aromatic, and deliberately “contradictory” (ocean meets orchard, darkness meets brightness).

    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-5.4 Nano: Below is a comprehensive 3‑month (12‑week) longevity + performance plan designed for a biohacker who wants measurable improvements in longevity markers, physical output, body composition, metabolic health, and cognitive function.

    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-5.4 Nano: Pirate: Arrr, ye speak of AI models like they’re sea shanties! “Transformer this, perceptron that”—sounds like more rum for the brain. Can your model find buried treasure, or just buried bugs? Knight: Hark! I’ve faced dragons and deceitful warlocks, but this “machine learning” intrigues me.

    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-5.4 Nano: I’m not a lawyer, but I can flag contract terms that (a) are unusually one‑sided, (b) create open‑ended or high‑risk obligations, or (c) can be interpreted in ways that materially disadvantage the contractor. I’ll then suggest specific counter‑edits and explain the typical legal/contracting rationale.

    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-5.4 Nano: Below is a simplified LBO model using only your inputs. I make the standard simplifying convention that “cash taxes = 25% × max(0, EBITDA − total cash interest)” and that PIK is non-cash (adds to mezz principal; does not reduce cash interest).

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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-5.4 Nano: Dish Name: Golden Garlic Chickpea Clouds Pantry Ingredients (7 total) Chickpeas (canned or cooked) – 1 can (15 oz), drained Olive oil – 2 tbsp Garlic – 3 cloves (or 1–2 tsp minced garlic) Lemon – 1 (you’ll use the juice) Salt – 1/2 tsp (plus to taste) Black pepper – 1/4 tsp (plus to taste) Paprika – 1 tsp Estimated…

    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-5.4 Nano: Here are the three weakest claims in the deck, why they’re weak (with specific reasoning/evidence gaps), and concrete ways to strengthen them. Weakest claim: “Reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it.”

    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-5.4 Nano: Below is a back-of-the-envelope FLOPs estimate for training something “GPT‑3–like” (the 175B parameter model described in the original GPT‑3 paper). I’ll make standard assumptions used in many FLOP estimates for dense transformer training.

    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-5.4 Nano: Experienced software engineer (distributed systems / APIs, skeptical about “next-word”) A large language model (LLM) is trained on huge corpora by learning statistical patterns that map a sequence of tokens (text subunits) to likely continuations—so yes, at the core it’s “predict the next token.”

    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-5.4 Nano: Here’s a simple, actionable 1‑month plan focused on 3 key areas: food, movement, and sleep/stress. It’s designed for beginners and is intentionally realistic. Overall goal (simple) Each week, build consistency in: Food: more whole foods + fewer “defaults” Exercise: daily movement + 2–3 strength sessions/week Sleep +…

    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-5.4 Nano: “AI Revolutionizes the Knitting World by Perfectly Predicting Every Yarn Purchase—Then Demands a Monthly Subscription to ‘Continue Your Passion’”

    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-5.4 Nano: INTERNAL INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMO — LedgerLift (LLLT) Date: 2026-03-17 Prepared by: IC Analyst Confidential Recommendation + PT + 2-sentence thesis Recommendation: LONG (paired with hedges where appropriate). 12-month Price Target (PT) range: $48–$62 (base case $52; bull $62; bear $48).

    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-5.4 Nano: Here are 5 jokes: I told my computer I needed a break, and it said, “No problem—I’ll go to sleep.” Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. I used to hate facial hair… but then it grew on me. Parallel lines have so much in common. It’s a shame they’ll never meet.

    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-5.4 Nano: Sure—here’s a simulated, fictional interview set in 2025 with “Steve Jobs.” (Note: Steve Jobs passed away in 2011, so this is an imaginative roleplay, not a real transcript.) Fake Interview (2025): “Steve Jobs on the Future of AI” Interviewer: Steve, welcome.

    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-5.4 Nano: Sally has 2 sisters. Reason: Each brother has 2 sisters total (including Sally). Since Sally is one sister, there is one other sister besides her—so Sally has 2 sisters in total.

    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

Album

Book

City

Game

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-5.4 NanoGPT-5.4 Nano

The Matrix

1999

The Dark Side of the Moon

Pink Floyd

To Kill a Mockingbird

Harper Lee

Lisbon

Portugal

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Adventure, Action

Price and specs

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window. GPT-5.4 Nano costs 8.0x less per token.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-5.4 Nano compared across 53 shared prompts
SpecClaude Sonnet 5.5GPT-5.4 Nano
Input price$2/M tokens$0.2/M tokens
Output price$10/M tokens$1.25/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens400K tokens
WeightsClosedClosed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Mar 2026
At 10M a month$20.00$20.00$2.00$2.00
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·99.9% up
  • Azure AI Foundry$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
  • Anthropic$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
  • Google Vertex AI$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
GPT-5.4 Nano2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Azure AI Foundry$0.20 in·$1.25 out·400k·100% up
  • OpenAI$0.20 in·$1.25 out·400k·99.9% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 29 Sep 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-5.4 Nano?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is developed by Anthropic while GPT-5.4 Nano is developed by OpenAI. Claude Sonnet 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs GPT-5.4 Nano'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-5.4 Nano?

It depends on your use case. Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-5.4 Nano 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-5.4 Nano?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $2/M input tokens and GPT-5.4 Nano costs $0.2/M input tokens. GPT-5.4 Nano is $1.80/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-5.4 Nano on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-5.4 Nano 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 Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs Claude Opus 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs GPT-6 Sol 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-5.4 Nano vs GPT-5.4 MiniVersion compare
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs GPT-6 Luna ProSame lab
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs OpenRouter Fusion · Quality (Jun 2026)New provider
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 1.5 ProSame size
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash ThinkingSame size
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 2.0 Pro ExperimentalNew provider

Model pages

  • Claude Sonnet 5.558 outputs, specs and price
  • GPT-5.4 Nano53 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