Claude Opus 4 vs GPT-5 Mini
Compare Claude Opus 4 and GPT-5 Mini side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Object Detection, Open Prompt, and Classification.
Compare Claude Opus 4 vs GPT-5 Mini live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Claude Opus 4 is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs GPT-5 Mini: Overview
Claude 4 Opus, released by Anthropic in May 2025, is the flagship model of the Claude 4 family, built for complex, long-horizon reasoning and advanced coding workflows. It is multimodal, supporting text (including voice), images, and tool use, and operates as a hybrid reasoning model—able to deliver quick answers in fast mode or switch to extended thinking for deeper, multi-step problem solving. With a ~200,000-token context window and a training cutoff around March 2025, it is optimized for handling large documents, long conversations, and sophisticated agentic tasks.
Positioned at the high end of Anthropic’s offerings, Opus 4 achieves state-of-the-art results on coding benchmarks like SWE-Bench (72.5%) and Terminal-Bench (43.2%). It is best suited for research, enterprise automation, and software development at scale. The model is classified at Anthropic’s ASL-3 safety level, denoting advanced oversight and safety features.
GPT-5 Mini, released by OpenAI on August 7, 2025, is a mid-tier variant of the GPT-5 family that balances cost, speed, and capability. It is multimodal, supporting both text and image inputs, and offers a substantial input context window of ~400,000 tokens with output lengths up to ~128,000 tokens. While less powerful than the full GPT-5, it inherits its safety tuning, instruction-following improvements, and multimodal reasoning, making it a practical choice for developers who need large context handling without the expense of premium models.
GPT-5 Mini is optimized for affordability while retaining strong reasoning performance. Benchmarks show it outperforming earlier models such as GPT-4o on many multimodal and medical VQA tasks, though it lags behind GPT-5 on the most complex problems. Ideal use cases include prototyping, scalable content generation, document analysis, and mid-range reasoning tasks where efficiency and context capacity matter more than top-tier accuracy.
Claude Opus 4 vs GPT-5 Mini Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4 | GPT-5 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2025 | Aug 2025 |
| Context Window | 200K | 400K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $15.00 | $0.250 |
| Output $/1M | $75.00 | $2.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 56.72% | 73.13% |
| Avg Response Time | 19.74s | 11.72s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.4K | |
| Median output tokens | 143 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0006 | |
| Defect Detection | 66.7%(10/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 85.7%(12/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 57.9%(11/19) | 89.5%(17/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 76.86% | |
| Avg Response Time | 4.63s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 105 | |
| Median output tokens | 209 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0004 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 72.7%(72/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 78.3%(47/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology