Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-5.4 Mini
Claude Opus 5.5 and GPT-5.4 Mini score 82.0% vs 53.2% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#4 and #53 of 65 models), so Claude Opus 5.5 leads overall.
- Claude Opus 5.5 wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on object detection (74.5% vs 15.8%).
- GPT-5.4 Mini is about a fifth of the cost: $0.0034 vs $0.015 overall average cost per sample.
- GPT-5.4 Mini is faster: 5.5s vs 7.6s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-5.4 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 5.5 vs GPT-5.4 Mini on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-5.4 Mini Comparison Table
Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated November 7, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5.5 | GPT-5.4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 400K |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | commercial use per vendor terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $4.00 | $0.750 |
| Output $/1M | $20.00 | $4.50 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 82.0% | 53.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.015 | $0.0034 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.63s | 5.51s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0 | 15.8% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 15.3 to 16.1 |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0 | 16.6% ±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 15.8 to 17.4 |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 58.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 56.8 to 60.8 |
| Counting (high) | 82.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8 | 64.9% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 67.6 |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 83.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 |
| Identification (high) | 95.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | 82.3% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4 |
| OCR (low) | 78.3% | 51.1% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 79.9% | 55.8% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 83.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1 | 57.0% ±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 60.9 |
| Reasoning (high) | 85.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1 | 64.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.9 to 65.6 |
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-5.4 Mini: Overview
Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.
On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.
GPT-5.4 mini is a fast, cost-efficient model developed by OpenAI and released on March 17, 2026, optimized for high-throughput workloads and subagent orchestration. It supports text and image inputs within a 400,000-token context window, making it ideal for processing extensive visual datasets and large codebases in a single request. Designed for low-latency production environments, the model integrates with key API features including function calling, web search, and tool-based computer use, allowing it to assist in automated workflows that require navigating digital interfaces.
Compared to the previous GPT-5 mini, this version runs more than twice as fast while approaching the performance levels of the flagship GPT-5.4 on reasoning and coding benchmarks. While the larger GPT-5.4 introduces native, state-of-the-art computer-use capabilities, GPT-5.4 mini provides a scalable alternative for interpreting screenshots and reasoning over dense UI layouts. For vision tasks on Playground, it excels at extracting structured information from visual documents and assisting in agentic tasks that involve real-time interpretation of software interfaces alongside text.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 82.0% (#4 of 65) against 53.2% (#53 of 65) for GPT-5.4 Mini. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 74.5% against 15.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-5.4 Mini is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0034 per sample against $0.015. Claude Opus 5.5 is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output; GPT-5.4 Mini is priced at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $4.50 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-5.4 Mini is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.5s per inference against 7.6s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.